next program features a story and authors catherine algore and anita black. tonight on c-span. >> in a few moments today's white house briefing with spokesman jay carney. some of today's senate debate on immigration bill and at 9:00 p.m. eastern a forum on first ladies through and history. ....

thank you for being here. it is always good to have you on a slow news day. before i take questions, i wanted to note that this week represents an important step in our efforts to start delivering on the promise of expanding access to quality, affordable health coverage for millions of americans. we're launching the new and improved healthcare.gov which will be the marketplace's online home starting in october. for spanish-speaking customers, the website has been updated in preparation for the marketplace. the screen behind me gives you a sense of the new website. we're opening a consumer call center that will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. this toll-free service will help answer questions. starting in october, it will provide personalized assistance for callers filling out the

application or selecting a plan. beginning october 1, a new health insurance marketplace will open in every state giving americans a new way to shop for health insurance. for the next 100 days, the team at hhs will be working to educate the public about in a moment. for the first time in the history of the private insurance market, consumers will be able to go to one place to check out coverage options, and get accurate information and make comparisons of plans before they make the decision. i do recommend you visit the site. it is well-designed and user- friendly and represents the efforts underway to help inform the american people about the options available to them under health care reform and the affordable care act. julie? >> what the can you tell us about edward snowden's whereabouts? is the white house working under

the assumption he is still in russia? >> we understand he departed hong kong yesterday and arrived in russia. beyond that, i would refer you to russian authorities. >> you cannot tell us whether you are working under that assumption? >> it is our assumption he is in russia. >> what conversations happening between the u.s. and russia? there was a report that you were asking the russians took options to expel him. do they say they are working towards that goal? >> we are in conversations. we are working with them were discussing with them or expect in them to look at the options available to expel him back to the united states to face justice for the crimes with which he is charged. i would note that given our intensified cooperation with

russia after the boston marathon bombings and our history of working with russia on law enforcement matters, including returning numerous high-level criminals back to russia at the request of the russian government, but we do expect the russian government to look options available to them to expel mr. snowden back to the united states. >> have they responded by saying yes we are? >> i do not have detailed conversations to read to you. we are monitoring the situation closely. we are in contact with russia and other governments as appropriate. >> snowden left hong kong. what type of influence do you think beijing had in that decision? >> first of all, let me say the request was made, complied with all of the points in the agreement. at no point did the authorities in hong kong raise any issues regarding these efficiencies of

the u.s. arrest request. in light of this, we find their decision to be troubling. since june 10 when we learned mr. snowden was in hong kong, u.s. authorities have been in contact with their hong kong counterparts at the working and senior levels. attorney general eric holder placed a phone call on june 19 with his counterpart in hong kong stressing the importance of the matter and urging hong kong to honor our request for his arrest. there have been repeated engagements by the u.s. department of state and consulate general in hong kong. there have been repeated engagements by the fbi with their law enforcement counterparts. there have been continual communications by the doj office of international affairs with counterparts at the hong kong department of justice international law department. on june 17, hong kong authorities acknowledge receipt of our request. despite repeated inquiries, they did not respond with additional

information saying only it was under review and refusing to elaborate. on june 21 hong kong authorities requested additional evidence. the u.s. had been in communication with hong kong about the increase in were in the process of responding to the request when we learned hong kong authorities allowed the fugitive to leave hong kong. we are not buying this was a technical decision but hong kong immigration official. this was a deliberate choice by the government to release the fugitive despite a valid arrest warrant. that decision and unquestionably has a negative impact on u.s.- china relationship. >> what are the repercussions in the relationship? >> i will not speculate, but the chinese have criticized the importance of building mutual trust. we think they have felt that effort is serious setback. if we cannot count on them to honor their legal extradition obligations, there is a problem.

that is the point we're making to them directly. i have no presidential communications to report. obviously, we are communicating with our counterparts at the appropriate levels. >> are there repercussions for russia and u.s.-russia relations? >> i would not want to speculate on outcomes. as you know, we understand mr. snowden to be in russia. we are in discussions with russian authorities about that. we have a strong law enforcement cooperative relationship with the russians. that has resulted in us returning criminals to russia. we are expecting the russians to examine the options available to them to expel mr. snowden for his return to the united states. >> how frustrating is it to the president that china and let him

go and now china seems to be on the verge of letting him go? >> i would not want to speculate on anything that has not happened yet. i will say our frustration and disappointment with hong kong and china is reflected in the statement i just made. >> how did the president react when he learned snowden had left hong kong? >> i would say the president has been updated by his national security staff on developments. i do not have a characterization of his reaction to developments except to say that he is monitoring it closely and the disappointment we feel in the handling of this by hong kong authorities and the chinese is evident by what i just said. >> do you want answers on why his passport was not pulled sooner? >> let me say a couple of things about that. the state department explained this yesterday. as a routine matter and consistent with u.s. regulations, persons with felony arrest warrants are subject to having their passport revoked.

such a revocation does not affect citizenship status. persons wanted on felony charges such as mr. snowden should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel and other than necessary to return them to the united states. because of the privacy act, we cannot comment on mr. snowden's passport specifically. i can say the hong kong authorities were advised of the status of his travel documents in plenty of time to have prohibited travel as appropriate. let me repeat. i can say the hong kong authorities were advised of the status of mr. snowden's travel documents in plenty of time to have prohibited his travel as appropriate. i think i did reflect our concern and disappointment in the actions or failure to act by hong kong authorities as well as

the fact we do not buy the suggestion china cannot have taken action. >> the president made a call to president putin. if he has not, why not? >> i do not have presidential communications to read. there is no reason given international law and the relationships with the countries in question that this would require a communication from the president. i am not reading out presidential communications. there are communications at all appropriate levels. we have a strong cooperative relationship with the russians on law enforcement matters. we expect the russians to examine the options available to them to expel mr. snowden for his return to the united states. as i just said, when it comes to our relations with hong kong and china, we see this as a setback in terms of their efforts to

build mutual trust. our concerns are clearly stated. yes. >> does the administration feel mr. snowden has revealed everything he had to reveal? he said he had access to the full roster of the nsa. do you believe he has access to that kind of information? >> there is a damage assessment being undertaken. i do not have specifics on the progress of that assessment for you. the nsa would have more on that for you. i can say we are concerned about the leak of classified information. we are concerned about the kind of information that has been leaked. i think that is reflected in the action taken by the department of justice. we have said all along the disclosure of this kind of highly classified material is

extremely damaging to our national security and gives our terrorist enemies a playbook for our activities designed to thwart them. the implications of this kind of an authorized release of information are profound. yes. >> a russian news agency has speculated one reason for the delay in his departure may be that there are concerns the u.s. might try to force down a russian airliner to land on u.s. territory to retrieve snowden. would we go after him with force like that? >> we are communicating with appropriate authorities in russia and elsewhere on this matter. i am not going to respond to speculation in a russian newspaper. it has been a long time since i have done that. >> would we down an airliner from another country?

>> we expect the russian authorities to examine all options available to them to expel mr. snowden appropriately. i think i can leave it at that. >> do you rule out any use of force? >> i will not engage in speculation about options. i will say we're working with authorities in a variety of countries on this matter. >> is there any information on what has happened to the four computers he is supposed to have been carrying? >> i do not have any information. as i have said, we remain concerned about the unauthorized leak of classified information and potential for leaks of more classified information. there is a damage assessment on going.

i think it is safe to assume information he has provided and may still have is already compromised and the damage assessment would have to take that into account. >> there are stories out there. one story has the computers being left behind at one point. another story has the chinese having had a chance to copy the information. what do we know? >> i do not have specifics. maybe the department of justice does. it is safe to assume in the damage assessment that is ongoing that any information he might have that is unauthorized that he has not already provided publicly, we would expect to be

compromised. >> the president is disappointed in china's handling. what about the u.s. handling? what is leading the efforts? is it the white house, the justice department? >> there are a variety of people involved on issues like this. the state department at the diplomatic level. the department of justice of compromised. law-enforcement level. the white house has a coordinator -- >> to track him down. >> department of justice has issued an indictment and has a lead in that matter. there are other agencies involved in the effort to deal with the situation. that involves diplomacy as well as law enforcement. the white house has a to your question about the u.s. handling of it, i think i addressed the issue of the passport. again, without being able to be specific about an individual's passport because of the privacy act, i was able to say what i said about the fact hong kong authorities were advised of the status of his travel documents in time to have prohibited his travel as appropriate. there was no indication in any conversations between u.s. officials and hong kong officials prior to their request for information that preceded the departure of mr. snowden that there were any problems.

>> there have been suggestions and reports that interpol was not contacted early enough in the process to alert them to the fact that the u.s. wanted their help. is that true? when where they contacted? >> on matters of interpol read notices, it is most valuable when you where be reduced when the whereabouts of a fugitive are unknown. we knew he was in hong kong and sought his arrest pending extradition while the charges were under seal. it is unfortunate hong kong failed to take action on our request and permitted a fugitive to leave their country in an obvious attempt to escape justice. >> the administration was obviously embarrassed to have a contractor leaked documents in

the first place. is the administration embarrassed that you cannot track him down? >> i have been clear about the actions we have taken and our assessment of the failure of authorities in hong kong to act appropriately on a provisional arrest. we have known where he is. we believe we know where he is now. there are ongoing conversations about that. beyond that, we will have to assess as time passes. >> we are more than six hours removed from the airplane he was supposedly going to be on on the way to havana. is he not on airplane yet? is that a sign the government is making progress? is that a positive sign as far as the u.s. government is concerned? that he has not gone on an airplane. >> this is an ongoing situation

as you describe it. we have asked the russians to look at the options available to them to expel mr. snowden back to the united states. i can note that we have worked cooperatively with the russians in the wake of the boston marathon bombings and have a fairly substantial history of law enforcement cooperation with russia as a backdrop to this discussion. i would not want to characterize communications at this point. i would not want to speculate about outcomes. this is clearly fluid. we're monitoring. >> so far, they are cooperating? >> it is our understanding mr. snowden remains in russia. beyond that, i would not want to speculate about next steps except that we have communicated to the russians our hope that they will look all options available to them to expel mr. snowden back to the united states.

>> does the u.s. government believe if he is allowed to leave russia the u.s. government will give up on getting him back? >> i would not want to speculate about that. i do not think "give up" is a way to characterize the situation. right now, we understand where he is and having appropriate conversations about that. i would not want to get ahead of that. >> on immigration, one of the house democrats said he does not believe it is a blow to immigration reform is a version does not pass the house before the august recess. are you comfortable with the idea that it does not act you can still get immigration reform? >> we want progress in both houses. we have seen substantial

progress in the senate. we consider the agreement reached on border security to be a positive breakthrough in the bipartisan effort toward common- sense immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform in the senate. this process is continuing. we look forward to action by the senate. we continue to work with the house as they take up the issue. your question is a good one because it reflects that there are obstacles that remain before we get to where we want to be, which is to a place where we have bipartisan legislation passed by both houses of congress that meets the standard set by the president, the principles he laid out, so he can sign it into law. this was always going to be a heavy lift.

we are encouraged by the progress we have seen. we recognize we are not there yet. a lot of work remains to be done. in the house certainly, in the senate as well. i do not want to draw any lines in the sand about what we're hoping or expecting to see out of the house. we want to continue to see progress. we believe there is the kind of progress in the senate that reflects a broader consensus in the country. assessments that have been made about the bill in question reflect the broad benefits immigration reform will provide to the country, to the middle class, to businesses, to economic growth, to reducing our deficit. there are plenty of benefits here. there was an assessment about

the benefits of legal immigration reform and the benefits that would have on innovation and entrepreneurship in this country. immigrants are disproportionately responsible for business start-ups. that helps to drive the economy and increase growth and job creation. this legislation and issue is much bigger with far broader benefits than i think is sometimes recognized. yes, sir. >> can you talk about the government's assessment of president mandela's condition and what the thinking is of how that might be handled going forward given the president's trip? >> at this point, i can say we are monitoring the situation and

understand from the reports the former south african president nelson mandela is in critical condition. our thoughts and prayers are with him, his family, and the people of south africa. i would not want to speculate about the impact of his health on the president's trip. he continues to look forward to his visit to south africa and to continuing to build on our strong partnership with the south african government and people. the president obviously has long seen nelson mandela as one of his personal heroes. i think he is not alone in that in this country or around the world. we all express our thoughts and prayers are with the family at this time. >> would you anticipate if he

were to pass before the president left the visit would be changed in tone but still take place? >> it is hard to say. it would not be appropriate to speculate on that right now. we're all wishing for his recovery. yes. >> back to the snowden situation. can you detail the president's personal involvement over the last few days? how often is he being briefed? is he personally monitoring things? is this operating below him at the justice department? >> i do not have presidential communications to read. i can say the president has been regularly briefed by his senior staff on the situation by all of the appropriate officials. with regards to one of the earlier questions, this is a circumstance where all the appropriate steps were taken. all of the appropriate

communications were made with hong kong authorities. as has been detailed by the state department, we see no reason or no justification for the failure to provisionally arrest mr. snowden in hong kong by hong kong authorities in accordance with our negotiated agreement. so, this process continues. we are in conversations with other governments about the situation. yes. >> a question on climate and the president's speech tomorrow. does the president feel the epa has the ability to carry out the regulations he will outline tomorrow? >> gina mccarthy is uniquely qualified. she has decades of experience

serving democrats and republicans. she has a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to find common sense solution. the senate should confirm her without delay. as you saw over the weekend, we announced the president will speak tomorrow at georgetown university on the growing threat of climate change and the need to reduce carbon pollution and that we need to do that for the sake of our children and future generations. he will lay out his vision for where he believes we need to go. i will not get into specifics about what he will announce. he will present a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, to prepare our country for the impact of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it. this is a serious challenge but one that we are uniquely qualified in the united states to deal with. in a way, it plays to our strength. we should be leaders in this effort. >> if the epa does not have a confirmed head -- >> we would not accept the premise.

gina mccarthy is uniquely qualified to lead the epa. we believe should be concerned. there is no reason for her not to be. she is qualified for the post. we will continue to work with the senate to see her confirmation through. >> i have one other question. do you have any reaction to the supreme court ruling on affirmative action and take a confirmation next fall? >> those are two separate issues. on the recess appointments, we're confident the president's authority will be upheld by the courts. we posted a blog item and can recirculate that. the issue is about the president having the authority of his predecessors have had to make these recess appointments.

beyond that in terms of our legal argument, i will point to the blog post. affirmative action, this is an ongoing case. that was the decision made by the court today. i do not have further comment. you have seen what we have said about it. you have seen the brief we have filed in the case. i have no further comment on the decision by the supreme court to send it back to the lower courts today. >> you mentioned the talks that are going on regarding mr. snowden. can you describe what kind of level they are up? >> not more than i have, the appropriate levels. i think i made the point this is the kind of thing based on the cooperation we've had in the past, that we can discuss at the appropriate levels with counterparts in other governments. we are doing that with russia

and other countries. >> has there been any communication between the administration and ecuador? >> i cannot quite recall if we have anything on that. let me see if we have anything on ecuador. the answer to that is the united states has been in touch via diplomatic and law enforcement channels with countries through which mr. snowden might transit or could serve as final destinations. i do not have more details on the conversations except that they have been held through the appropriate diplomatic and law enforcement channels. the u.s. is advising these governments that mr. snowden is wanted on felony charges and should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than necessary to

return him to the united states. >> we had a story the other day about the insider threat program the administration has that goes beyond national security leaks. it deals with co-workers monitoring other co-workers, the fact that agencies are telling employees that divorce and financial problems could lead to leaks and equates leaking to espionage or treason. i am wondering what the president's level of support is and how knowledgeable he is about it. >> i confess i did not see the story. what do you have a comment on that? >> i will have to read the story first. then i will know. >> when you say you know where snowden is, how specifically do you know where he is? >> do you mean what room in building? [laughter]

we know he was not in c17a based on the reporting of your colleagues. i will not get into specifics. it is our understanding he is still in russia. >> you said he hoped russia would expel him in an appropriate manner. what would that look like? >> our general conversations with the governments is about the fact he is subject to felony charges and we would expect him to be prevented from taking further international travel except for travel that would return him to the united states. >> with the united states sent an airplane to pick him up? >> i think we will have the appropriate discussions with the appropriate officials and governments. the general principle applies

regardless of the mode of transport. >> going back to hong kong, do you believe the hong kong government knew exactly where snowden was and were able to get their hands on him? what is the united states relationship with ecuador? is there any reaching out to their foreign ministry to prevent snowden from going to a quarter? >> i just answered the ecuador question by noting we have been in touch via diplomatic and law- enforcement channels with countries for which he might transit or could serve as final destinations. obviously, ecuador has been speculated about as a location. >> how would you describe u.s. relations with ecuador? >> i do not have a characterization of the relationship as regards to this. we would be noting to other governments the fact mr. snowden is wanted on felony charges and

should not be allowed to proceed with any further international travel except as necessary to return him to the united states. >> did they let the united states know where he was? >> i think he was at the airport. passing through immigration, they probably knew it was mr. snowden, no doubt. we have ongoing conversations with hong kong authorities about mr. snowden. the answer would have to be yes to that question. >> have the chinese broken the trust of this relationship the two countries are trying to make? >> i think is fair to say this is a setback in the effort by the chinese to help develop mutual trust. you know, i think as we have said, with regards to the failure by hong kong to provisionally arrest mr. snowden

that we do not buy the suggestions of the chinese were not part of this, that this was just a technical issue in hong kong alone. we believe it is a setback. >> is the relationship between the u.s. and china heading toward some kind of cold war kind of thing? >> i think that is getting ahead of things. >> is it the administration's perspective that countries are doing that to harbor him or access the information they believe he possesses? >> let me say this about that question. mr. snowden's claimed he has focused on supporting transparency and protection of individual rights and democracy is belied by the protectors he has potentially chosen.

china, russia, ecuador. his failure to criticize these regimes suggests his true motive has been to injure the national security of the united states, not to advance internet freedom and free speech. i think with regard to the first part of your question, i made the point the unauthorized disclosure of classified information has an enormous negative impact. there are ongoing damage assessments being done. certainly it would be our assumption any information, any further classified information he has that has not been divulged publicly would be compromised or has been compromised.

>> what about your argument he is a criminal? is he more like a spy? why give him up? >> i made no comment on any activity by any other government. i simply said you have to assume if he has taken without authorization classified information, you have to make the assumption it will be publicly or compromised in some way. you cannot assume it is protected or safe because he has taken it with him and left the country. so, beyond that, he has been charged, as you know. you have seen unsealed indictment. >> based on the president's address, does the president have a dim view or hope of getting climate legislation through in

his second term? >> i think his view reflects reality. we have seen congress attempt to deal with this issue and fail to. the president has made clear he will act where he can, with congress where possible, but where he can on this in a range of issues. if there is a sign congress has the will to take up matters related to reducing carbon pollution and doing other things to positively affect the development of clean energy or reducing the impact of climate change on the american people, then we will obviously be more

than happy to engage with congress and will do that. but the president will take the actions he began using his authority to address this challenge. you know what he was able to do in the first term when it came to reducing or increasing carbon emissions standards. it was historic. it will have dramatic impact on the amount of carbon pollution in the air. he and the administration were able to do that working with automobile manufacturers. it did not require congressional action. i am going to have to do one more after you because i have a 1:00. >> the big question is whether epa should regulate existing power plants. can you say whether the president will call on epa to regulate these power plants? >> at the risk of shocking yahoo!, i will not preempt the president. nor will i randomly the bulge classified information. the president will give his speech. you will be learning about his proposals and actions he

proposes taking from that speech. >> i was listening to something before coming over. they implied he is no threat to snowden. is there an implied physical threat to the physical safety of mr. snowden from the u.s. government? now or in the future? of course not. my real question -- [laughter] you kept referring to how well we cooperated recently. you sort of made a critical remark about the nature of the regimes in some countries.

>> i think i was making factual statements in all cases. >> ok. when i look at this, i think the u.s. has a history of torture and people like snowden. they are called dissidents and political prisoners. they were called dissidents and political prisoners. i look at snowden and as a classical political dissident. if so, why do they not deserve to be supportive for the desire to tell the truth about their own people? >> you feel passionately about this, i can tell. the distinctions are evident if you look at them clearly. when it comes to mr. snowden, he has been indicted for the unauthorized release of classified information. again, i think the point i made is that if his passion is for

press freedom and freedom of the internet and the like that he has chosen unlikely protectors. again, i will let the case itself -- >> the political dissidents commit crimes all the time, including terrorist crimes. you probably remember the case where the hijacked the plane and killed. they came to the u.s. and given refuge by the u.s. >> i think there are real distinctions between the legal regimes in place in different countries at different times, the consequences of violating and being charged with laws in different countries at different times. i think you know that as well as i do and know the history as well as i do. we clearly believe mr. snowden

ought to be returned to the united states to face the charges that have been set against 10 through an open and clear legal process we have in this country. thank you all very much. >> has the president talked to the mandela family? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the senate as voted to take that includes a border fence and these are tracking. this part of the debate is 20 minutes. the center has done a good job

talking about the base bill. the vote tonight is not on the bill, but on an amendment. many people on our side of the aisle have had concerns about order security and the way the napolitanois janet would decide what order security measures would be put in place and implement them in 180 days. that calls for people to be concerned about what kind of border security measures would be implemented. the base bill leaves that discretion to the person who leaves -- leads homeland security. on the floor we had dozens of measures that we voted on to strengthen border security. all of those measures have failed. i have voted for almost every single one of those, and almost

every member on our side of the aisle, other than the gang of eight, as voted for those measures. what we have before us tonight is another border security amendment. what this amendment does is it puts in place five triggers that are tangible. ift these triggers say is these five things are not implemented, those that are here, undocumented, in temporary status, they do not receive their green card. let me go through those five measures. first of all, there has to be 20,000 more border troll agents deployed, -- patrol agents and deployed and trained. that is doubling border patrol. 350 miles of

fencing has to be in place. that is tangible. deploy overhave to $4 billion worth of technology on the border that will give us border patrol 100% awareness. before anyone can achieve their green card status, this has to be bought and deployed. fourthly, we need to have a fully implemented exit and entrance visa program, something republicans have pushed for four years, and then a fully e-verify system. all five of those measures need to be in place before someone can move from a temporary status to a green card status. those are tangible triggers. when i was in the shopping

center business, i used to build shopping centers around the country, and it was evident in the community that i was in when i completed. when i completed them, i was paid. i did not have to go through we meang that said did 90% of the retail needs of the community. we tried to design the center to meet the needs, but it was tangible when i was completed and i was paid. what this amendment seeks to do is to put five tangible elements as triggers, elements that havelicans for years pushed for. it is my hope that this evening republicans will join me in putting in place the toughest border security measures we have ever had in this nation. now, the senator from alabama has talked about the length of

this amendment. long.endment is 119 pages because of senate procedures, it baseo be added to the bill, which made it over 1200 pages, but the base bill has may, hasnd through gone through committee, and almost everyone of us has gone gone through the many provisions. the amendment that we went through friday, it is 119 pages long. for those that are listening in, welegislative language, write pages so that they are triple spaced, very short read it is really -- short. it is really 25 430 pages long. i would say to the president that any middle school student in tennessee or alabama could read this amendment in 30 or 40

minutes. b asking senators to be given an amendment on -- to be asking senators to breed an amendment -- read an amendment is not something major to be asking. the length issue is a total myth. some people have talked about the cost of this. well, let's talk about that. first of all, the cost only happen if the bill passes, but it is estimated that it would cost about $46 billion. mr. president, that only happens if the bill passes, and i think that you have seen that the cbo .core is $197 billion if the amendment were to pass and the bill were to pass, we

would have a situation where over the next 10 years we would be investing $46 billion in border security, almost all of which are measures we have pushed for four years, but we would have $197 billion coming into the treasury. mr. president, i have been here six and a half years, and never had the opportunity to vote for something that cost $46 billion over 10 years, we received $197 billion over 10 years, we did not raise anybody's taxes and it are motored economic growth. i would say show me one piece of legislation had the opportunitye opportunity to vote for that has that kind of return. in theedge fund or united states of america would take those odds. finally, it may say to the

senator from alabama, the governor from arizona was just on the television. she read the amendment, and what she said on national television is that this amendment is a win, a total victory for the state of arizona, and she knows more about border security probably than any governor or any president in the united states of america. let me say once again what we are voting on tonight, a very tough border security amendment. if you vote for this amendment, it means five very tangible things need to be in place, whether the money is appropriated or not. they have to be in place before you can have a green card. if it is not appropriated, no green card. when people say well, congress cannot spend the money on this,

well, if congress does not spend the money, people can not move into greek card -- green card status. it is up to us. if you vote for this amendment, you are voting those five provisions have to be in place. they are very tangible. the entire population can see if they are in place or not, and until they are in place, people do not move to the green card status. if you vote against this amendment, what you are saying is i would rather not have these five tough measures in place. i would rather have janet a. napolitano, the head of homeland security, decide what border security is going to be. i do not think that makes everyone in this body comfortable. people have talked about the fact that congress needs to weigh in on border security and we have with this amendment.

i would say if you really believe in making sure that we address our border security, this amendment is something you should support. if you would rather go to the leave it to the administration, which i agree has not done the things they should do to secure the border, then the vote for this amendment. i have a feeling that people on this side of the aisle will see the light, and to the people on the other side of the aisle that might resent this, what i would say is what this amendment does is it balances out the bill. .t balances it out it says that yes, we will put the kind of border security in will cause the american people to trust us. at the same time, in doing so,

he will put in place tangible -- we will put in place tangible triggers that can not be moved. they are there, they are concrete. if we meet them, people have the pathway to be the kind of productive citizens they would like to be. this satisfies people on our side of the aisle that one border security, and it should satisfy those on the other sidee american people to that acknowledge we should do both. with that, i yield the floor. i know a lot has been said. i would just urge every member of this body to take the 30 or 40 minutes -- not much as a united states senator -- on one of the biggest issues we have dealt with, to read the amendment, see how superior it is to the base language. this is an effort of improving a bill, and then decide, do you really want to vote against an amendment that the governor of arizona, who has dealt with

this issue more closely at any of us in the body, has dealt -- has described as a total victory for the state -- you want to vote against this? i think we should send this on to the base bill with a tremendous majority. then we could debate the other pieces. we have an entire vote. i would like to see a vote on the portman amendment. some are blocking the wardman amendment. it would make this bill even better. i hope we will here on the portman amendment and other senators as they seek to improve the bill, but i hope we will do that after voting closer on a border security amendment that strengthens this bill, puts it in balance, creates trust with the american people and creates

the kind of pathway many people are seeking. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. -- ell, >> the senator from alabama. >> the senator would acknowledge his amendment was filed friday afternoon, when 90% of the .enators had left town and it was not just his interest. all kind of special interests and senators interests have been added to the bill, and it was filed as part of the overall bill, so you would acknowledge that the replacement and we would be voting closure on tonight is 1200 pages, a little less than 200 pages more than the bill was on friday morning. >> may i respond? >> yes. >> mr. president, in responding

to the good senator, the senator with one of the best temperament in the united states senate, i would respond that there is no question our amendment is 119 pages long, and it does incorporate input from other senators. i would say the senator was a great jurist from the state of alabama. he worked on all kinds of legal documents before he came to serve in such a distinguished he in this body and i know understands well because he has had to do it many times that when you have an amendment that touches many parts of the bill, or a contract that touches many parts of the contract come what people do to cause people to understand how it is written those 119you added pages throughout the text of a bill that has been around since

may that the senator from alabama was able to go through and detail as a member of the judiciary committee and offer amendments. he has seen the base text for a long time, and went through it more than most here in the senate. yes, we added an amendment. it does have other concerns. that is what you do when you try to write legislation that solves a problem. it is 119 pages. it was added to the base text. that is true. on any measure, for somebody that cares about border security, it is much stronger than the base language. >> well, mr. president, i am going to talk about what the amendment does. the senator has not seen quite , though he as much is experienced and a very able addition to this senate, but he has not seen how over a decade

promises about enforcements to the border do not occur, and that is important. go through the amendment you have offered and make some comments about why i think it does not do what you believe it does and why we should not pass it, and while we absolutely should not move forward on the substitute, which is basically the bill that has been put out by the gang of eight, which fails in a whole host of ways. and, i would just also be ask you, do i will you believe that senators who have concerns about the bill should be given the right to have amendment voted on in an up or down way as long as reasonably necessary to be able to offer amendments to fix the legislation? >> does the president, i could

not agree more with the senator from alabama, and as i mentioned in my comments, i hope that this body, i hope the senators on my side of the aisle, will not lock senator rob e -- e-s amendment on verify. i would say to the good chair from alabama, i have not locked -- blocked one single amendment from being voted on. the fact is, i say let's let it roll. to see another 50 or 80 amendment this week if time would allow. let's let it roll. >> i appreciate the senator

saying that, but it will not happen, because senator harry reid will be in complete control of the voting process. amendments will be at his pleasure, the ones he thinks he is willing to vote on, and the ones he does not approve on to 0 or 80 amendment, he will not be voting on. i would just say that is where we are. 67-27 tonate voted advance to border security amendment. 15 republicans voted for the amendment. in a few moments, a form on first ladies through american history. in one hour, supreme court oral argument in a case involving affirmative action in higher education which the court sent back to the fifth court of circuit -- fifth circuit court of appeals. then, a discussion about cooperation between the u.s. and mexico. >> monday night, we are continuing our focus on first ladies. algore, anita black.

this is a little less than one hour. [applause] what a treat it is to be here. these two women are out of a great tradition. they come as the adjuncts. the men who make trouble, and the women who make it better. [laughter] is i wastisement thinking that the united states is an equal opportunity employer but until a guy has to

do all of those things, then we will see how it goes, but the truth is people are so ignorant about the jobs that they have done through our history. we have tried to shed some light and reduce the degree of ignorance. there is a sense that before elinor roosevelt, first ladies went around pouring tea. that could not be further from the truth. even since eleanor roosevelt, there is a sense of not really being clear on who was doing what. you always complain that when your husband was elected, people said would you be barbara bush or hillary clinton.

you said i would like to be laura bush, which you are and have been wonderfully. there is always that thing that goes on, too. i read that vests truman once realized you and i have both written about that period of the founding. and, veterans she had been to camp with, the eight long years. and abigail adams probably is a rule breaker in terms of bringing civility, she was

probably causing problems of her really a madison was figure in american politics that people don't really have a very good sense of. >> yes, and i have to say something now about martha washington. >> i like martha. >> yes. . mary washington not so much >> i think she wouldn't disagree that she had an indifference to the role. she said she felt sometimes like a state prisoner. she said she understood that the american experiment was more than just politics or politics in a different way. so she began right away, even though she didn't gare for it and would rather be at home at mount vernonon, she began otocol. about pr

the founders understands it was not just enough to have a constitution, they needed to emake life in an american way. she realized they needed manners. and my manners, not just tea cups and how to hold them, but a way of being. she was much more of a traditional -- almost like a sort of an associate to her husband. so it was not until dolly madison that traditions changed. we can point to her influence in olitics. so it is not until dolly madison that we began to see a real political animal as first lady.

she accomplishes so many things we now associate with the first lady, being the commander, if you will, of what we call the unofficial sphere of politics, the social sphere. the sort of role of the charismatic figure. i sism thighs -- i must say, i sympathize with everyone who followed her. she just set everything up in place. >> and certainly after her successors came in, she ruled over washington for decades. >> yes. i was first drawn to dolly madison because she was so famous. i didn't really understand that because i grew up in philadelphia, so dooly -- dolly madison ice cream, and i watched those charlie brown christmas smerblet -- specials, dolly madison cakes and pies. >> i actually made dolly madison kes on a show, and they kept

slapping my hand because i wanted to talk rather than baking the cakes. >> you have had the most varied career. i wanted to say that at the end of her life, and they actually have photographs of her because she lived long enough to be photographed, that she became an icon and a relic. that's when i understand that first ladies have the capacity o be personified this is a pattern in american politics, famous or not. one is there are women, real people, that actually do things. then there is also this secondary capacity of being a personifying figure. i think many first ladies have come to become a first lady and reeled that this thing was larger than life, and that was something dolly figured out. she becomes a figure head for her husband's administration. as you know, james is not terribly charismatic. >> no. >> but he didn't have that sort

of personifying capacity. but she fostered an attachment to the capital city. all this is happening in 1808. she doesn't know this. but in 1808 the british are going to burn the capital city and all this work that she put in to helping the public identify with this house that they called "the white house" under her term is going to pay off, because it is going to give a serge of nationalism around the war. >> did you see this sort of carrying through? >> yes. kat, and ay, i love we have sent emails back and

forth, but i think what you have done to set the tone for all of us, is really remarkable work. and you haven't gotten enough credit for it. if i could tweak that a little bit, i would say these women had courage. they were calm in a time when the country was going crazy. eruption in se politics, because we really are goingng into politics and

for the jugular, which i thought if i e getting away from, may get personal for a minute. >> at least they have put the guns away. >> they were shooting with each other. if you look at a war with native americans or american indians, whether you are looking at the civil war or whether you are looking at the war of 1812 or you have huge economic depressions where the country has -- is literally falling apart and there is no cash, there is no common currency between states, there is no sense of a union at all. so what these women do, regardless of the period that they are in, you know, have done at -- i don't know the djective for it.

i mean what you did, you lifted us up. [applause] >> you can't write that. you can't go into the role expecting that that's going to be your job. obody told eleanor roosevelt she was going to be in a fox hole or fly in military aircraft and spend five weeks during war time and have her ear drum go deaf in one ear because she's flying through shooting ballistics, for that time, missiles. i mean, you can't prepare for this. >> and once she did that, the generals that had been very hesitant to have her do that saw she made a huge difference in troop morale. >> like martha did. >> absolutely. >> and had her dumb back.

>> absolutely. and they have her on press in their memoirs saying it was their single biggest miscalculation of the war was to oppose her visit. i think you can't train for that. we can talk about policies, we can talk about politics. but the thing to me that is so remarkable about the women who have assumed this position is how much guts they have, how much brains they have, stamina that is just beyond imagination, and a willingness to rise above it and just do it. you know, there is no time for -- what loved past some would call a pity party. > when asked how do you do it, grace coolidge is quoted as

saying, "you just do it." and i think that's true about women in general. but she had not been part of her husband's political life. he had really excluded her from his political life. then he becomes president and she is in washington big time. >> that's right. and what do you do when the war is not on, the rest of the time ing first lady when there is not a crisis? when i look at grace, and the two people that came after her, mrs. hoover, and maybe mrs. bush as well, what they do is education. very, very often they turn to that. so you have someone -- in ,race's case, she was the first first lady who graduated from a co-ed state school. she graduated from vermont and she had this professional trade .raining to teach

>> it was when she started her students of said, well, you taught the deaf to hear maybe you can teach the mute to speak. >> you remember, too, the deaf and blind in that period were not as today. people looked away. disabilities were negative. d she brought them in to society. she brought them to the white house. helen keller came to the white house. that was a very important moment for the deaf and blind, that the first lady would recognize them and integrate them. and she had a great personality so she could draw out anyone. she was the opposite of the president. she made that her work. i was thinking, too, of mrs. hoover who loved reading and who enabled readers and did enabling

of reading all her life. >> she was head of the girl scouts. >> she was head of the girl scouts. she is always thinking of how to lead, how to train. and president hoover translated from latin, and translation having gone over hoover's college records at stanford. and she brought readers to the white house. i was just reading a story, when her back was out once and she had to lie down and there were some new learners, at adult literacy people from the mountains who did not know how to read and who came to see her, and she was so sick but she nonetheless received them upstairs because she knew it was important for them to meet the first lady, even if the first lady wasn't doing too well. she said, what do you read? here's what i read. don't read trash. read the great works. she was always there with that in the background for president

hoover for these projects and also with scouting. a lot of the president's wives did scouting. and i notice that with mrs. bush. because i'm a reader, too, and when i first saw from the outside just observing the book festival and the literacy project to have another lie brarian there, i think the first lie brarian was abigail fill more. in the white house long ago made -- she had had worked as a school teacher. it is so important, because then the people that read the books are better able to handle the emergencies of which we just spoke. >> that's absolutely right. and i think many first ladies have the experience, as you aid, allda, that you think you are going to do this, and then life happens. september 11, mrs. bush. and i want to come back to that

in a bit. but even in education, even there it can be something different than you expect. so for instance, she was always interested in education. but with the great society and the war on poverty and all of that, people started coming forward and saying, what's really needed is early childhood education. now we knee whalingts needed is really early childhood education. so she started head it start, and it turned out not to be that easy. >> i love this, and i never get to talk about it. >> i follow instructions. > but when congresswoman lindsey bines was kind enough to let me interview her, we were talking about different policies and i'm passionate about education. so she started telling me the storty of how head start

ctually got implemented. the program had been conceptuali safment ed, the program had been authorized, but they were coming down to the wire and they hadn't spent the money yet. so it was spend the money or lose it. so what mrs. johnson did was they called cokie's mom up and she called betty ford. the three of them had phones put in, and they called every minister or any bus logger they knew from campaign trails, because they had a week, a week, to get the program up and running. so what they did was, they said, we'll use these buses, the churches in different schools will lend us their buses, and that's how headstart money first got spent, and the kids got to the classrooms. there is a point of this. it is ingenuity, it is paying

attention, and it is bipartisan and it is friendship, focusing on an area of expertise that is ood for the country. >> yes, i wanted to get to that part about the bipartisanship, especially. i had the great honner e -- honor of speaking at mrs. ford's funeral. which she asked me to do and then told me what to say. [laughter] >> because she wanted me to talk about that time when everybody was together. and dolly madison did that. she brought -- thomas jefferson would only have the federalists one night and the republicans another night to the white house. she brought everybody together. and even when they were really in battles, they discovered they couldn't skip her dinners because that's where everything happened. so they had to show up. >> yeah, and i think at this moment i've been looking at both

-- i am- i think in big a professor, and there will be a test at the end. >> do we study first ladies? we don't do it because it is nice and just because they are there. but in looking at women that are spouse of the president, we see things, and we pay attention to things that we wouldn't if we just paid attention to the official sphere -- legislation, debate, press releases. so i'm seeing in these stories the idea of politics, so eleanor roosevelt is contributing to something called psychological politics, which now we know are maybe the only politics there are. >> what does psychological policies mean? >> it means how people feel about how they are being ruled. and they feel that way from the messages they get from the leaders. and what these women did is ften send these messages about how they were -- how their

husbands and their families were the right one. i will tell you a little seek rit receipt, which is at the -- since the beginning we americans ave had a fascination with aristocracy. that was the only vocabulary of power that we knew, royalty. so when it came to this new administration which no one was sure would work, they wanted it to have that kind of aristocracy. so we have this 3-d moment where john adams is calling -- >> and the congress said, we'll call out on the rotunda! [laughter] >> but in the end we didn't, thankfully. in the end, we call him mr. president. james madison was mr. president and his wife became queen dolley.

she answered that need for legitimacy and authority that we needed. and getting back to this idea of bipartisanship -- >> but let me just, it was always a tug-of-war, which i think every first lady has also gone through. you have to be elegant enough and glamorous enough and not just personally but as a style of the white house that people do look up to it and see a sense of authority, but also down home enough so that you don't allienate people in this small arm society. people knew that when she arrived in new york, she arrived at the news capital at the time wearing homespun. >> she also had these lovely white gowns which were supposed to signal the roman republic. dolley madison did it the other way. e wore satin, erman, and things that look suspiciously like a crown -- >> tiara.

>> yes, but she had this down-home quality and sweetness. and you are using the word bipartisan. and with dolley madison, there wasn't a word for that in the early republic. these were people that thought one party should rule and everybody else was a traitor. unfortunately there were two groups of people that thought this. they didn't have a sense of working together, which is going to be the hall mark of a democracy with two parties in it. and somehow dolley madison understood understands that the salvation of the system was to bring people together, make them behave, and let them begin to of good other as people hearts, not characterized as evil. >> that was the thing of the time, and we are living it to some degree now, because washington didn't exist. so they were living in boarding houses with people that thought exactly like them.

so they didn't have the sort of ameliorating discussions with other people that might not be exactly like minded except in social settings. >> you know, dolley madison is famous for redecorating the white house, but one of the things she did was really restructure it. she created these public rooms where everybody, meaning every member of the government, their families, locals, visitors, diplomats, could all gather in one place. and this is amazing, but before the white house, there was no place everyone could meet, even all the members of the government. >> amity, in talking about this, though, i alluded to mrs. bush's situation, so education was what she thought she was going to be doing. she was on her way to capitol hill to brief the education committees when the first plane hits the trade towers. and then life changes.

and then all of a sudden, a different issue comes out. in this case, women of afghanistan, women of the world. >> yes, and you look at this situation, and you have to turn n ape -- on a dime, don't you? andatched mrs. bush do this identify with women, and with mr. bush and identify that women were important in the middle east. we pick up on in the bush center we have an emphasize of these women coming, like the egyptians were mentioned earlier. venus vee -- vis-a-vis, i want to talk a little about grace. she didn't expect to be the president's wife. their status was pretty low in washington. vicefelt when coolidge was president they were stuck at the willard. she loved animals, she couldn't

ve them, and the coolidges were like the roosevelts. she had one animal that happened to be a rodent that came to eat all the food when the people came. and they were already talking about a new vice president for the next term because coolidge hadn't really worked out when their president harding died, and suddenly she's in the white house. wait a minute, she's waiting outside the white house for mrs. harding to be ready to leave. and we pick up to negotiate tha president has died, and the widow is there and you want to show respect to the widow, they did that beautifully, the coolidges. and they decided to leave one week, and they decided not to, and they were another week at the willard, and they were extremely gracious. how to handle when a president dies and you come in. because of course theedor

roosevelt -- and what to do when she's there. and we have her letters to her sore offensive coordinator -- ity centers. she basically said, pray for me, i'm paraphrasing, because she understands this was about a about her, it was about service. >> and it clashes sometimes with your marriage. did i mention the thing we discussed this morning? with the coolidges, as all i imagine, most couples were the individual cone, the president and the first lady, and they had a tearible thing happen when they were president which was their son died. calvin coolidge, their son got a blister on the white house tennis court and died within about eight days. >> he was 16 years old. >> 16 years old. just before we got antibiotics. had it been 20 years or 30 years

later, he might have been saved. was as telling amity i doing a panel was doing a panel on the historical society, and a somewhat elderly man said because of this death his mother had told him not to wear dark socks, because his mother thought it was the dye in the socks that did in the son. the whole generation was affected by that. >> and how do you mourn in the white house? she knew that it was not -- she had to mourn for the public, she had to mourn for the president. she wore not white but black in mourning the following year. she showed how to mourn in the white house. that became a most important signal, because in that period many, many people lost their children. and the male -- mail is extraordinary. if you read the letters from her

secretary, miss randolph, or if that came letters to the white house upon the death of calvin, "i too lost a boy." so that helped a great part of the country to identify with her. >> and even still, they all called her sunshine. >> she was the extrovert to the intro vert. >> they called him smiley. >> yes, it was a joke. both of them were constrained by the fact they could not mourn as they wanted. one of the ways they demonstrated leadership is they didn't cry in public. it was a different conception. they did not go on television shows. they didn't talk in that way. she wore white. they got animals. she did many activities with children, both of them. and the story is, as cokie mentioned, what else did she do

for herself? she did exercise. you develop ways. and she had a secret serviceman who was in her cone, who had played tennis with her son, who had helped undig a spruce tree from their family lot in vermont and bring it to the white house to plant on the grounds. and she liked mr. hayley, and he was important to her. but president coolidge was a jealous man, and -- >> she was a beautiful woman. >> she was a beautiful woun woman. and it was said she could wear color, her complexion was like that. and when they were in south dakota she and mr. hayley went for a walk, and they were an hour late, they got lost, and the president transferred her secret service man away. he did that because he wanted to avoid scandal. he never let her do things he thought might bring scandal upon the white house. but that backfired on calvin,

because the story was that calvin was cruel. and everyone was appalled. mr. hayley was a very pieous man. nothing was wrong. grace wrote a letter to help his career because now the secret service men had espurgeon. that was the worst snapshot of their marriage. the best snapshot 6 their marriage, it was an extraordinary marriage, was that all their friends came together. there was no presidential library for president coolidge, and they said we will raise money for your papers led by clarence baron of the wall street journal. and calvin said all right you can raise the money but let it be for a cause that i want it to be for. and they did, they raised $2 million. i ought to reference to you what that is, it is about as much as ambassador langdale has raised. an enormous amount of money. president coolidge took that

money and he did not use that money toward papers, he gave it to grace's most important project which was the clark school for the deaf in northhampton, massachusetts, where she had taught and led and was so important. so they devoted much of that money to the clark school. and all the years after -- he knew he might die soon, he had a bad heart. all the years after calvin was gone she had her project, an important educational institution backed by the friendship of the coolidges. an amazing story of a gift. nd all the years >> now after a president died, i don't think there was a worse

example of that than poor mrs. johnson. it was a sense of tragedy in the nation. handling that is not an easy thing to do. >> and yet she did it. it wasn't -- the nation had not just lost a president, they lost a first lady they were fascinated with. and with the possible exception at least in the modern era, bess truman following eleanor roosevelt, i don't think there is a bigger contradiction in the public's mind between jacquelin johnson. d ladybird but the country is lucky somehow. i think we were exceedingly

ladybird was able to build on jackie's work but make it her own and expand it in a way that really helped the country. because what we saw was the gut-wrenching funeral. we saw john-john saluting. i very well remember being pulled out of a very republican, to be angelical school pulled into the hallways to be told that the president had died . as the only democrat in the school, it was hard for me both ways, especially in the south.

but to see ladybird who understands not how to be a grandmother but how to be strong and how to lead at the same time, and not just lead in the public, but lead behind-the-scenes. if i could switch for a little bit and talk about the politics of the office. i mean, what she was so masterful at doing. remember, she's from memphis. i'm from memphis so i say "memphis" the same way i say "texas." but we're in the biggest legislative battle of the 19 60's, and they are going to take the 1964 civil rights act, which i think never would have passed if john kennedy had not been assassinated and lyndon johnson would not have been president. there is no doubt in my mind. they would have passed it eventually, but it would have

been i think at least a decade, aybe longer. i hope not. knocking johnson is heads the way only lyndon johnson can knock heads. it is incredible. and you have ladybird, and she is doing the exact same thing with grace and tact. >> it has every piece of dirt known to human kind on it in those days, and then you have ladybird reaching out afterwords and sort of calming the feathers , she has ct same time democrat tremendous relationships.

that's something we don't really -- i have always been struck by the affection mrs. bush between you and senator kennedy. and senator roosevelt was very close to john foster douglas. the reason we have the international declaration of human rights is because of eleanor's relationship with john foster douglas. you would never think they were friends. she would say, i am not jackie. i miss jackie, and i mourn for you. t our country is in a crisis in the height of the cold war, we just came down from the cuban missile crisis, we just barely recuperated from the bay of pigs, and now we have birmingham.

how are we going to deal with this? so she was able to be political. and the policy behind-the-scenes like headstart in a way that was nonconfrontational that could help soothe the political feathers that her husband had in some cases not just roughlied -- lucked [laughter] but i think there are times when it is just a fluke and we get lucky. man, she knocked it out of the ball park. >> she was also campaigning for

her husband. she was a enata, omplicated person. john quincy adams' wife. he was a really impossible person. she would write letters to old john adams about what was going on in washington to amuse him, to make him happy. she wrote one letter saying "it is my vocation to get john quincy adams elected president." the m the beginning, politics were there. >> it is interesting when we look at what the women are doing, it opens up a sense of what political process. that's what i hear both of you saying, that we understand this

idea of process. camagna it a becomes clear that they are running for president. >> so this is something we'll read in our history books. but it is this moment before the election of 1824 where apparently the very uptight john quincy adams makes a deal with henry clay. he won the majority of the popular vote. so the assumption was that jackson would win.

but it became jackson-adams -- clay. so clay being the third dropped out -- i'm sorry. it was jackson and crawford and clay. so clay, being the bottom man is out of the running. and he's a very powerful member of congress. >> so the question s. who is going to get his vote. and there seemed to be what was a corrupt deal. it puzzled historians. how could this john quincy adams who spent his life disavowing anything about president, "i will not show myself to be president" how could he stoop to this well based politicing? and we don't know about that until we see what louisa adams was doing. and she instituted social

programs, every tuesday night was mrs. adams night, bringing people to washington, because she figured this election was going to end up in the house. she wrote a letter saying, mr. adams goes over my calling cards every day so there is sort of a battle plan. when we look at what she is doing, there is a mystery solve, because we understand in an era when men could not run for office, they had to be called upon, it was their wives that acted as campaign managers. >> so what happens when you get to the house of representatives, adams was on the first ballot, which flabbergasted everyone. but the truth is, all of those women had been et entertained by louisa adams. one of them went back to his boarding house where he promised that he would not put adams on the first ballot and they won't

sit down to dinner because they are very mature. and well behaved. [laughter] and one of them writes to his wife, "everyone says his wife made him do it." and his wife was skylar, hamilton's sister. >> so this is a town where are iance and attendance equal. >> so you would accept an invitation for every single tuesday night. you better not go -- you may not go tuesday night, but you better not go anywhere else. >> that's right. and she had a big ball for jackson hoping it might send minimum back to tennessee. >> and it did. >> i want to get to you in a minute because we are right on this moment. franklin roosevelt, of all people, didn't want to go to the

nvention in 1940 because he, too, want wanted to be drafted and named by aclimation. and this was breaking the precedent of a third term, so he sent eleanor. >> what happened is, they are pretty confident that in fact f.d.r. is going to be drafted for the unprecedented third term. if i could say this on c-span, when all hell breaks loose is with the vice-presidential nomination. nationals the coalition completely unravels. and the team of convention are frantically calling the president. and the president says, well, if i can't have wallace, i'm not going to run. and he's, you know, he's already -- he's sitting there at a card table writing out what he's going to say when he's going to so they e nomination

call eleanor, and she flies to he con veng with no prepared speech, no speech writer, no nothing. it made conventions just look like everybody has fallen asleep on cough siry. -- syrup. >> well, they are. [laughter] >> they are not coreographed for tv. there are no huge aisles, unless you are running over singing a song and trying to run over the have a banner.nd the people with her want to pull her back off the podium. and you know, she says no. so she goes up, and in the shortest speech in the history of either the democratic or publican convention, says,

"this is no ordinary time" as goodwin has so -- whether al smith, the governor first catholic, and was chosen heather heavily to run for governor. which is -- which he is not expecting to do for another couple of years. he cannot say unassisted that he has these 10 pounds of steel on his leg.

if you can remember one thing, remember that eleanor was political before lucy. what eleanor did was work with the women of new york state to uild a grassroots campaign system which totally restructured the politics of new york. if i knock on your door and i question farm parity, if i physically write down on my card, then i'm going to come onk with an answer and knock your door again. they had note card systems for voters in upstate new york that .ere visited five times i'm not talking robo calls, i'm talking respectful one-on-one,

what do you care about? and that says to al smith to say to his p.a., we must have f.d.r. on the ballot in 1928 because his wife is more well known among the party faithful and up state voters than anybody in the history of the state. so they understand, you know, what they have to do, but northeast understand why they want to do it, and they understand why it is important in a way that advances their husband's careers. >> the sense of being in the public? will rogers called mrs. coolidge public female number one. talk about that a little bit. >> she was always about helping. always about putting herself second at great cost.

so that's a little different. nd i'm thinking about flicks mrs. roads svelte planning the next campaign. she wanted to make it clear, she didn't know what he was planning ahead when he was running in 1928. calvin coolidge was enormously popular, so he could have run or another term in 1928. we know she made a blanket in the white house. that was on the lincoln bed. she was trying not to show that she was calling the shots. when the president said "i do not choose to run" which was a big surprise in the summer of 1927, a senator was over for lunch, and she said the

equivalent of, knocked me over with a feather. she really wanted to leave the executive to be free. that was a formal almost a kaboo kifment e dance for her. you look in her autobiography, there was another mother she was thinking of, and hat mother was the mother of charles lindbergh. she never wanted to freak out her son. grace felt that which about calvin. she wanted to help but not get in the way. it's not a modern style. it's not what we would do, but she did it well. for that we admire her. there are people that admire calvin coolidge very much for deciding like cincinatus or washington that maybe it was helpful for the country to have a change in leadership after a time, that this idea, and we deal with it today, of going

back and going back, because we are an important leader. coolidge didn't like that. he felt rather, let the country do without him. and she supported him in that. so she sport supported another style of presidency. >> but she also felt, as i think ery first lady felt, a tremendous sense of duty. this was i and yet not i. this was the wife of the president of the united states and she took precedence over me. >> and in that she was similar to eleanor who says something like that, and you go all the way back. you are playing a role, and it is hard, and -- but it is of value to the people. the presidency, the first couple as symbol. when she was out of the white house, she wrote poetry about her son.

but during the period, it is i but not i. i am playing a role, and it is incredible, wonderful. >> it is this idea of the real woman and the charismatic figure. >> yeah. > but martha washington, including thomas jefferson, she aid terrible things about him. she says, i don't want to do that, but i am so acustomed to putting my duty ahead of my personal desires that of course i will do it. it ended up she didn't have to do it. but do you think that goes with the territory? >> yeah, i do.

and i'm reminded we have a clock to watch. i would like to say something about why we study first ladies -- >> but can i just say something really fast? >> yes. eleanor carried a prayer in her well wallet. "dear lord, lest i continue in my com placent ways, help me remember that someone died for me today. if there be more, help me to remember to ask and then answer, am i worth dying for?" nd i think that encapsulates this. >> yes. >> what have our firth ladies give yep up? >> from martha washington to mrs. bush they have given us an alternative model to politics, one that centers on civility, one that builds bridges instead of bunkers. so just when we despair of the

whole thing, of the fighting, we can look to this model, and assure that it was president elect in the first. >> do you want to say a final word there, too, amity? thank you all so very, very much. [applause] >> even >> you can see all the first at s, "influence & image" span.com, or go to facebook.com. >> there are markers on this battle field.

the men that fought in this valley are getting older. they are going to that by building monuments. in modern times, the 20th and 21st century, we have other ways of commemorating things like that, but in those days, that's how they commemorated the service here. this is monuments to the soldiers, monuments to people like john buford. the monuments help interpret the story. they are placed in the ground where the une -- where the people fought. most monuments were union monuments. quite honestly, by the time of the war's end, there there is t enough money to to build monuments in the south. >> content masterson brown,

brooks simpson, ethan rafuse, harold holzer, followed at 5:30 with your calls and tweets for gettysburg historian jeff shaara. african-american historian hari jones. and "a field guide to gettysburg" carol reardon. dramatic readings from eye witness accounts of the bank battle. and at 9:15, more calls and tweets from peter carmichael, all day on sunday on american history tv on c-span3. >> in a few moments, the supreme court oral arguments regarding affirmative action policies in higher education. which the high court today sent back to the fifth circuit court of appeals for further review. in about an hour and a half, a discussion of cooperation

between the u.s. and mexico. after that, the program on first ladies through american history. >> the supreme court decided on y to send a case affirmative action policies on higher education back to the fifth circuit court of appeals. justice beginsburg was the only dissenting vote in the 7-1 decision. justice kagen did not take part in the case. this will last about an hour and half. >> i guess to say this is case number 11345, fisher quens the university of austin. justice suitor trained me too well.

chief justice of the court, and may it please the court, the central issue here is whether the university of texas at austin can carry its burden of proving that its use of race as an admissions plus factor in the consequent denial of equal treatment, which is a central mandate of the equal protection clause, to abigail fisher met the true test of strict scrutiny, which are applicable -- >> mr. rein, before we get to this matter, the court is supposed to raise it on its own, the question of upstanding, the injury -- if the injury is rejection by the university of texas, and the answer is no matter what, this person would not have been accepted, then how is the injury caused by the affirmative action program? the l, justice ginsburg,

first injury before the court was the use of a system which denied equal treatment. it was a constitutional injury. part of the damage claim was premised directly on the constitutional issue. >> i would task texas vs. las uage with that, which says mere cognitive is not issue of race. >> the question is whether lasage could carry this case on summary judgment when it was parent his complaint, which was that he was denied access to the graduate program at the university of texas was not sustainable. as i said, there are several factors in this case which are quite different. first, there is a constitutional injury as such, and the court has recognized it. second, that the fact premise, she could not have been allowed in under any circumstance, was never tested below, was not raised below. it comes up in a footnote. >> can i go to another side. she's graduated?

>> correct. >> she disclaimed a desire after her application to go to the school at all. she was permit today apply for the summer program and get in automatically, and she didn't, correct? >> no, that's not correct, your honor. she was not automatically admitted. she submitted for the summer program and was rejected. racks what will she be entitled to? >> the denial of her right to equal treatment is an injury in itself.

>> you still have not answered. were nottain damages admitted, we would have to prove she would not be admitted. whether we can prove it or cannot prove it you cannot tell. it is merely asserted. >> we have had problems andlving state contracting, we have not required the person discriminated against because of race to prove he would not have gotten the contract otherwise.

>> no, sir. >> it's -- it's been enough that there was a denial of equal protection. >> that is our correct, and that is our first premise. and i would say that the same issue was raised in bakke. and in bakke, the contention was he couldn't have gotten into the medical school; therefore, he has no case. the court said, in footnote 14 to justice powell's opinion, that's a matter of merits; it is not a matter of standing. i think in parents involved, the same type of contention was made with respect to the louisville class plaintiffs whose son had been admitted to the school of his choice, and the court said damages are enough to sustain standing. there is a live damages claim here, and i don't think there is a question of standing. >> her claim is not necessarily that she would have been -- would have been admitted, but that she was denied a fair chance in the admission lottery. just as when a person is denied participation in the contracting lottery, he has suffered an injury. >> yes, justice scalia, i agree with that. >> if you are going to the merits, i want to know whether you want us to -- or are asking

us to overrule grutter. grutter said it would be good law for at least 25 years, and i know that time flies, but i think only nine of those years have passed. and so, are you? and, if so, why overrule a case into which so much thought and effort went and so many people across the country have depended on? >> justice breyer, we have said very carefully we were not trying to change the court's disposition of the issue in grutter, could there be a legitimate, a compelling interest in moving -- in using race to establish a diverse class. what -- the problem that we've

encountered throughout the case is there are varying understandings, not of the legitimacy of the interest, but how you get there; is it necessary to use race to achieve that interest; what does a critical mass >> so your question is whether your point is, does your case satisfy grutter? is that what you're arguing? >> we litigated it on that basis, yes. >> well, how do you want to argue it right now in the next ten minutes? i'm interested because i have a very short time to get my question out, and i need to know how you are going to argue it. >> well, justice breyer, our argument is we can satisfy grutter if it's properly read. what we've seen -- >> may i ask you on that specifically, let's take away the 10 percent solution. suppose the only plan were the one that is before the court now, no 10 percent. this is the exclusive way that the university is attempting to increase minority enrollment. then, if we had no 10 percent solution, under grutter would this plan be acceptable? >> well, i think that there would be flaws under grutter even if you assumed away

something that can't be assumed away because it is a matter of texas law, that is, there is a top 10 percent program, and that >> well, then the question is can you have both? but it seems to me that this program is certainly no more aggressive than the one in grutter -- it's more -- in fact, more modest. >> well, i don't agree with that, and let me explain why. in order to satisfy grutter, you first have to say that you are not just using race gratuitously, but it is in the interest of producing a critical mass of otherwise underrepresented students. and so to be within grutter framework, the first question is, absent the use of race, would we be generating a critical mass? to answer that question, you start -- you've got to examine in context the so-called soft factors that are in grutter. you know, are -- is there an isolation on campus? do members of minority feel that they cannot speak out? >> the one social studies that

this university did said that minority students overwhelmingly, even with the numbers they have now, are feeling isolated. so what do -- why isn't that even under your test? we can go back to whether substantial evidence is adequate, is necessary, or not. why does their test fail? >> well, the survey was -- a random survey. it's not reported in any systematic way. they evidently interviewed students. and it was all about classroom isolation. it wasn't about >> was it done before or after they announced the decision to reinstitute racial quotas? >> it was done after president faulkner had made the declaration they were going to do it. it was done before. >> which came almost immediately after our decision on grutter. >> on the -- i believe, on the same day. >> and by the way, do you think that grutter -- this goes to justice breyer's question -- do you think that grutter held that there is no more affirmative

action in higher education after 2028? >> no, i don't. >> was that the holding of grutter? >> i agree it might, but i want to get to the question, see what i'm trying to pinpoint, because we have such a limited time. and to me, the one thing i want to pinpoint, since you're arguing on that this satisfies grutter if properly understood, as you say that. in looking up, we have a two- court rule. and two courts have found, it seems to me. that here there is a certain -- there is no quota. it is individualized. it is time limited. it was adopted after the consideration of race-neutral means. each applicant receives individual consideration, and race did not become the predominant factor. so i take those as a given. and then i want to know what precisely it is that grutter required in your opinion that makes this different from grutter, in that it was not satisfied here? the ones i listed two courts say are the same. so maybe there's some others. >> i am not sure we agree with those courts.

>> we have a rule that two courts say it, we are reluctant to overturn it. that is why i mention it. >> considering the case of alternatives, it worked as well >> there are facts and there are back. if i might try to answer your question, there was no effort to try to establish even a working target for critical mass. they simply ignored it. they never ask the question, absent the use of race can we generate critical mass? so -- i mean, that's a flaw we think is in grutter. we think it's necessary for this court to restate that principle. now, whether that -- >> that -- that's a normal fact that we accede to two-court holdings on: whether there is or is not a critical mass? >> no. i -- >> it's a weird kind of a fact. >> and i'm -- i'm not saying -- >> it's an estimation, isn't it? a judgment? >> justice scalia, that is correct. and in addition, the courts didn't find whether a critical mass -- >> so could you tell me what a critical mass was? i'm looking at the number of blacks in the university of texas system. pre-grutter, when the state was indisputably still segregating, it was 4 percent. today, under the post-grutter system, it's 6 percent. the 2 percent increase is enough

estimation, isn't it? a judgment? >> justice scalia, that is correct. and in addition, the courts didn't find whether a critical mass -- >> so could you tell me what a critical mass was? i'm looking at the number of blacks in the university of texas system. pre-grutter, when the state was indisputably still segregating, it was 4 percent. today, under the post-grutter system, it's 6 percent. the 2 percent increase is enough for you, even though the state population is at 12 percent? somehow, they've reached a critical mass with just the 2 percent increase? >> well, we don't believe that demographics are the key to underrepresentation of critical mass. >> no -- putting aside -- i don't -- i'm not going to quarrel with you that if demographics alone were being used, i would be somewhat

concerned. but you can't seriously suggest that demographics aren't a factor to be looked at in combination with how isolated or not isolated your student body is actually reporting itself to feel? >> well, i think if you start to split out subgroups of minorities, you mistake i think what i think is the proper thrust of grutter, or at least ought to be. >> it might be -- it might be insulting to some to be thrown into a pot. >> why -- why don't you seriously suggest that? why don't you seriously suggest that demographic -- that the demographic makeup of the state has nothing to do with whether somebody feels isolated, that if you're in a state that is only 1 percent black that doesn't mean that you're not isolated so long as there's 1 percent in the class? >> certainly -- racial balance >> i wish you would take that position, because it seems to me right. >> justice scalia, racial

balancing is not a permissible interest, and we are constantly this court has constantly held not a permissible interest. and that is something we certainly agree with. trying to respond to justice sotomayor and in the framework of grutter, what you're looking at is, do you -- does this person, member of a so-called underrepresented minority -- it's a concept we don't necessarily accept, but it's texas's concept -- are they isolated? are they unable to speak out? and i think we've always said if you have a very large number, as texas did in 2004 when they ostensibly made the decision to reinstitute race, they had a 21 percent admission percentage of what they called the underrepresented minorities. they also had about an 18 percent admission ratio of asian-americans. so on campus, you're talking about -- about 40 percent of the class being minorities. >> but the test is -- the test is, in your opinion -- i have to write this in the opinion, you say -- the proper test of critical mass is is the minority

isolated, unable to speak out. that's the test. and it wasn't in grutter or was in grutter? and in your opinion, it was in grutter. >> yes. it said expressly in grutter. >> isolated. all right. and the reason it was satisfied there and not here is? >> in grutter, the court assumed that the very small number of admissions, minority admissions, looked at as the whole -- and it was looked at as a whole, only as a whole in grutter -- would have yielded about 3 or 4 percent minority admission in a class of 350, which means about 12 to 15 students -- >> so what are you telling us is the standard of critical mass? at what point does a district court or a university know that it doesn't have to do any more to equalize the desegregation that has happened in that particular state over decades, that it's now going to be stuck at a fixed number and it has to change its rules. what's that fixed number? >> we -- it's not our burden to establish the number. it was the burden of the university of texas to determine

whether -- >> well, they told -- they told the district court. they took a study of students. they analyzed the composition of their classes, and they determined in their educational judgment that greater diversity, just as we said in grutter, is a goal of their educational program, and one that includes diversifying classes. so what more proof do you require? >> well, if you are allowed to state all the grounds that need to be proved, you will always prove them, in all fairness, justice sotomayor. the question is, they have -- >> well, but given it was in the evidence, what more do you think they needed? i think i hear all you saying in your brief is the number's fixed now, they got enough, no more is necessary.

>> what we're saying in the brief was they were generating in fact a very substantial number of minority presence on campus. >> that's enough now. >> and -- >> that's what you're saying. >> no. and that immediately thrust upon them the responsibility, if they wanted to -- you know, essentially move away from equal treatment, they had to establish we have a purpose, we are trying to generate a critical mass of minorities that otherwise could not be achieved. >> tell me -- tell me what about their use of race did not fit the narrow tailoring, not the necessity prong as you've defined it, but the narrow tailoring that grutter required? how is race used by them in a way that violated the terms of grutter? >> and for this purpose >> assuming that the need is there. i know you're challenging the need. >> put -- put aside whether this was necessary and whether it was an appropriate last resort in a quest for diversity and critical mass, because grutter's not without limits. but i'll put that aside and let me come directly to your question. first of all, if you think about narrow tailoring, you can't tailor to the unknown. if you have no range of evaluation, if you have no

understanding of what critical mass means, you can't tailor to it. >> so you have to set a quota for critical mass? >> no. there's a huge difference, and it's an important one that is not well put out by the university of texas. having a range, a view as to what would be an appropriate level of comfort, critical mass, as defined in grutter, allows you to evaluate where you are -- >> so we won't call it a quota; we'll call it a goal, something grutter said you shouldn't have. >> well, justice sotomayor, i think it's very important to distinguish between the operative use of that range, in other words, that's where we are, and we're going to use race until we get there every year in consideration of each application, which was a problem. >> boy, it sounds awfully like a quota to me that grutter said you should not be doing, that you shouldn't be setting goals, that you shouldn't be setting quotas; you should be setting an individualized assessment of the applicants. tell me how this system doesn't

do that. >> this system doesn't -- i mean, it's not narrowly tailored because it doesn't fit. there are certain forms of grutter that it follows. it -- >> mr. rein, do you understand what the university of texas thinks is the definition of a critical mass? because i don't. >> well, it simply reiterated the language of grutter. they have no definition. they can't fit >> mr. rein, it seems to me that in your talking about critical mass, you are relying entirely on the 10 percent is enough. they don't -- they got minorities through the 10 percent, so they don't need any more. and i tried to get you rigidly to focus on -- forget the 10 percent plan. this is the entire plan. >> well, let me tell you that if you look outside the top 10, at the so-called ai/pai admits only forget the top 10 for a minute, they were generating approximately 15 percent

minority admissions outside the top 10, which is in -- above what the target was in grutter. so this is not grutter on its facts. it's vastly different. this is a -- >> because of the 10 percent. >> no. i am talking about only the non- top 10% of admissions. 15% of those were so-called underrepresented minorities. this is without the top-10. the top-10 is also a major generator of admissions. >> this was before the adoption of the plan. >> that was correct. >> now i am confused. i thought the figure was a ride that with the 10% plan. >> no. with that 10% plan, it is much higher. in 2004, it was much higher with asians, it was over 30%. i am isolating to non- top 10 in admissions. the average close to that over time. the minority presence is a combination of two, in fact, but the system, which was adopted, as texas says, the first thing they tried, to accommodate to their loss of the ability to use race that came up directly.

that was their first response. to the to a more balanced admissions program between academic and personal achievement index. >> could you comment on this, then i hope we could get back to the question from justice scalia. you argue that a race conscious ignition plan is not necessary because it did so few people. so few minorities.

i had trouble with that. what is the problem --? let's assume it resulted in the admission of many minorities. then you come back and say this shows we or wrongly excluded. >> assuming consistency, are you saying you should not impose this hurt or this injury generally for so little benefit. is that the point. yes, that is part of it. the second is the question of reasonably available alternatives. if we take texas at their word, and they say that they are satisfied with the way they apply race, we tried to measure what difference it is making, and could you achieve the same thing with a reasonable alternative. that was a question as in grutter.

>> the race-neutral alternative is the 10% plan? >> it includes an extension of the 10% plan. it was a major generator of minority admissions. >> is it really race-neutral. the only reason they can stick to the 10% plan was to increase minority enrollment. the only way it works is if he were to have some -- heavily separated tools. worse than that, i mean if you want to go to the university of texas under the 10% plan, you go to the low performing schools. you do not take challenging courses because that is how you will get in to the 10%. maybe the university is concerned that that is an inadequate way to deal with it. >> justice ginsburg, a lot of

that is speculative. there is nothing in the record to support that. they have never surveyed the pac-10. >> 10% plan is not been posed by the university. it is not their option. it is not them saying this is not good for education. it is imposed by state law. anybody that is in the top 10% of any school in the state gets into the university of texas. >> in the fifth circuit said you cannot disregard the consequence because it is a law. that is not the only alternative. one simple alternative is looking at the yield. what percentage of the amended minorities are they encouraging? >> this underlines my thing here, and i did look up the

figure. before the 10% plan, and the african-american side it averaged 5% a year pretty steadily. after 10%, it went down a little bit, not a lot, but down to 3.5%, maybe 4% maybe, that they introduced grutter and it is back to 5%. is that a lot? is that a little? there are several admissions officers, several thousand universities, what are we going to say that was not shown in grutter that will not take hundreds or thousands of these people and have federal judges dictating the policy of the mission for these universities? i am looking for certainty. i saw what happened. we saw the numbers. >> i will answer your question. >> you could answer it later, if

you want, or not answer it at all. [laughter] >> i am perfectly happy to answer your question. i think the increase you are looking at was pre-grutter, generated before 2004. they do not depend on ways to do it. that is why we say there is an alternative, which would serve increasing yield, or reading the pai, a critical element, putting more emphasis on the social and economic factors. >> now, will tell the university is how to run and way qualifications. >> it is not the job of the court to tell them how to do it. it is their job to examine the alternatives available to them. >> but you defend held the use of race overwhelmed those other factors.

>> the question is not whether it overwhelms. they admit there are admissions that would not have taken place before. somebody else would have had that place but for the use of race. to answer the question fully, you have to analyze race-neutral alternatives, and if you look at parents involved, that was the critical question. >> perhaps you could summarize by telling us from your point of view, this plan still scrutiny because the objective is inappropriate or ill-defined, or because the implementation is defective. which, or both of those are you arguing? >> we have argued both. >> in what respect does the plan fail the strict scrutiny under both of those categories?

>> under the first category, was it a necessary means of pursuing a compelling interest, we do not believe they have shown any necessity for doing what they're doing. race should have been a last resort. it was a first resort. they failed in every respect. if you go to narrow tailoring, what we say is if they did not consider alternatives, and their treatment of asian-americans and hispanics makes an incomprehensible distinction. they say we do not worry about asians. there are a lot of asians. is a demographic measure. if you are trying to find individual comfort levels,

breaking it down between african-americans and hispanics >> you are the ones in your brief who has assumed that their value in different races differently, but asian numbers have gone up, under however they have structured this pai, and as i understand their position, race is balanced against other issues like social economics, the strength of class's people took. it is not a stand-alone. even a white student, i presume, who goes to entirely black or latino school and becomes class president would get points because he has or she has proven that they foster or canned dealing in a diverse environment. that is how i understood their plan. it is not because of race. it is combining that with other factors.

>> there is a plus because of race. there are many other factors. the white student president of the class in an ethnically different school is a measure of leadership. leadership is an independent factor. he is not getting that point because of his race. he is getting that point because of his leadership. that is race-neutral criteria that could work for anybody. race is an independent and-on -- add-on. they say they could contextualized. it is not narrowly tailored and it gives mistreatment to asian americans because they are minorities as well. if it depends on the question factor, there is no way to fit with they are doing to the solution of the problem, which may use as a major foundation of their proposal, which is the non-diverse class compared. there's no correspondence there. i see my time is up.

>> we will afford you rebuttal time. mr. garre. >> thank you. for two reasons, it is held under this court. it is indistinguishable from individualized considerations of africans in their totality of tell been grutter. >> i've put that in the narrow tailoring category. it is not the necessity kong and prong and the most of his arguments have been centered on that. >> that was the second point. the holistic process is a necessary counterpart to the top 10% loss, and were systematically to offset the systematic drawbacks of that law in the cheating and interest

that is indisputable in assembling a broadly diverse student body. >> i need to figure out what these numbers mean. should someone who is one quarter hispanic check the hispanic barks or some other box? >> your honor, there is a multi- racial blocs. >> i suppose one person who is 1-quarter hispanic's determination would be that he is one-quarter hispanic and would check that box. >> they would make that determination themselves. if anyone violated honor codes, >> would it violate if they were one-eighth hispanic? >> i do not think it would appear that i don't think that

makes a difference in grutter. >> you do not check in any way? >> we do not, and no other college does. >> how do you know you have a >> how do you know you have a 15% minority? >> the same with the determination is made in any other situation. >> what is that way? >> do they have to sell --entified? self-identify? >> they do not. >> how do you know they're not just a critical mass class-by- class? how do they figure out if a particular class does not have someone looks them over to see who looks asian, black, hispanic?

is that how it is done? >> the university has never asserted a compelling interest in any single question. it simply looks the question of diversity as one dimension. >> i do not know what you're talking about. it is either a factor that is barely used, or it is not do they look to individual classroom diversity or not, and if so how do they decide? >> this court, in grutter, said when given -- given fact, could this courtle. recognized the obvious fact that the classroom is one of the most important environments where the educational benefits of diversity are realized. the university of texas, determining whether or not it reached trickle mass, look to the classroom. >> how did they look to the classroom? did they require someone to check a box? do they have somebody figured

out this person looks 1-32nd hispanic and that looks enough? >> they did a study that into account the same considerations in in a moment. >> what kind of a study. >> it is in the supplemental joint appendix. >> it does not explain how they go about classroom-by-classroom. >> there are student lists in each classroom. >> student lists that have race identified? >> no, your honor. every university knows what student is taking the classes. if you want to gauge better --ty, go back to -- diversity, go back to -- >> what they checked on the form. >> your honor -- >> that is a yes or no question. you go back to what they said on the form? >> that is information available to the university if they check it on the application. i want to be clear on this

study. it is only one of many information points. >> on class from diversity, how does the non-10% for their diversity?-- further classroom diversity? my understanding is the university has over -- my understanding is the university has over 5000 class's that classified as small, and the total number of african- americans and hispanics it that it was just a little over 200. how can that possibly do more than a tiny amount to increase classroom diversity? >> first, that two hundred number is erroneous. there have been many more minority candidates. >> per class? >> not on a per-class basis. with the university found was shocking isolation. >> how many non--top -- non-, 10% at issue are limited in each class?

>> we did not look at that issue, but in trying to find holistic -- we did the study before the plan at issue was adopted. at that time, there was nobody to admit -- no way to it that you're taking race into account. it to the african-american, 90% >> i do not believe i understand your question. you know the total number of african-americans in the engineering class. >> yes, your honor. >> and the total number admitted under the top 10% class? >> yes. >> subtract eight from b, and what is the value of c per class? >> let me explain why the university did not look at that. the time it was conducted, it

was before the holistic issue was adopted. in 2003-2004, the determination would not have been as important in just finding out african- americans or hispanics are under-represented minorities present at the university. >> what is the number? what is the critical mass of african-americans and hispanics to the university did you are working to? >> your honor, we do not have one. >> how will we supposed to tell if the plan is nearly tailored to that road? >> looking at the criteria in grutter, which rejected that you could come up with a fixed >> does critical mass very from group to group, state to state? >> it is contextual. it could very.

-- vary. assumed 20% as a critical mass and that is lumping together groups. ?> could you answer my question what does the university of texas think about those assumptions? is the critical mass dependent on the breakdown of the population of texas? >> no. not at all. it is looking to the educational benefits of diversity on campus. i think we agree on what that means. >> mr. garre, could you explain the critical question, why did the 10% solution not suffice? there were a substantial number of minority members admitted as a result of the 10% solution. why was that not enough? >> let me make a couple points, your honor. if you just looked at the numbers -- we do not but the numbers -- but after seven years, relations have remained

stagnant or worse. since 2002, african-american enrollment has dropped to 3%. that is one part of it. the other part of it, if you look at the admissions under the top 10% plan, taking the top 10% of a racially --entified high school like a may get you diversity that looks ok on paper, but it does not guarantee diversity that produces educational benefits. >> why does it not? >> because, your honor, as is true for any group, the harvard plan approved in bakke specifically said you want different viewpoints from individuals within the same racial group just as you would >> whattside of that. kind of viewpoints? political viewpoints? >> any kind of experience that they grow up with.

>> this has nothing to do with racial diversity. you're talking about something else. >> your honor, it impacts the educational benefits of diversity in this sense. the minority candidate that is shown that he or she has succeeded in an integrated environment, has shown leadership and community service is precisely the kind of candidate that will come on campus, help to break down racial barriers, or cross racial lines. >> all that is likely to included in the 10% will. incidently, when was the blood that?-- when was the 10% rule adopted? >> 1998, your honor -- when was the rule adopted it? >> 1998, your honor. if you look at the break down, i do not think it is disputed in this case to this point that although the percentage plan helps with minority admissions, by and large the minorities that

are admitted tend to come from segregated, racially identified schools. >> i thought the purpose of affirmative action was to help students from underprivileged backgrounds, and you make a different argument that i do not think i ever seen before. the top 10% plan applies to hispanics, and african- americans, but you say it is faulty because it does not admit enough hispanics and african- americans that come from privileged backgrounds, and you have the example of the child that is the successful -- of successful parent in dallas. let's say the parents have an income that puts them in the top 1% of earners in the country, and they both have graduate degrees, they deserve a leg up against an asian or white

applicant whose parents are absolutely average in terms of education and income? >> no, your honor.let me answer the question. the example comes almost word- for-word from the harvard plan that this court approved in >> how can he answer to that question be know? -- no? >> our point is that we want minorities from different backgrounds. we go out of our way to recruit from disadvantaged backgrounds. >> you are saying is what counts is race above all? that is a necessary response to justice alito's question. >> what we want is different experiences. >> underprivileged of a certain race, and privilege of a certain race. that is race. >> no, your honor, that is not race. it is just the opposite. thishe grutter decision --

court said that failing to take into account differences does a disservice -- >> the reason you are reaching for the privileged is that so members of the race who are privileged can be represented. that is race. >> it is members of the same racial group bringing different experiences. if you took any racial group and had an admissions process that admitted from a certain perspective, you would want different perspectives. >> that is the interest that the harvard plan specifically adopts. >> i understand my jab under our precedents to determine whether your -- job under our precedents is to determine whether your use of race is narrowed to a critical mass, but you not tell me what the critical mass is. how am i supposed to do the job?

>> what the president says is a critical mass is an environment in which -- >> when will we know they do have reached a critical best bet critical mass?there has to be a end point. point. -- what is the end point? >> this question implicates grutter itself, and i understood not challenging that diversity. what we looked into is feedback directly from students racial isolation they experience. >> you conduct a survey and asked students if they feel racially isolated and that is the basis? >> no no, that is one of the things we love that. >> what are the others? >> we look of the enrollment data that showed african- american the moment at the university of the texas-based

23% in 2002. >> -- at the university of texas dropped to 3% in 2002. >> at what level with satisfy critical mass? how am i supposed to decide whether you have an environment where particular minorities do not feel isolated? >> part of this is a judgment that educators are going to make. >> when you tell me, that is good enough. >> not at all, your honor.you would look at the criteria that we look at. the enrollment data, the feedback from the students. we took into account diversity in the classroom. >> would 3% be enough in new mexico where the african- american population is around 2%? >> i do not think it would. it is not tied to demographics. it is undisputed that we are not pursuing any demographic roles.

many key facts are undisputed here. it is undisputed that race is only a modest factor. it is undisputed that we are taking race into account only to consider -- >> mr. garre, i think the issue my colleagues are asking is at what point and when do we stop deferring to the university's judgment that race is still necessary? that is the bottom line of this case. you are saying, and i think rightly, that you can not set a quota, because that is what our cases said you could not do. if we are not going to set a quota, what do you think is the standard that we applied to make the judgment? >> the standard you would apply is the one set forth in router -- in grutter.

looking to if there was an environment where they do not feel like spokespersons for their race, cross-understanding is promoted, and the benefits of diversity are realized the reason the university of texas realized. the reason the university texas concluded that that was not met here, laid out in several different points that this court can review -- >> that holds for another 16 years?16 years and you will call it all off. >> we do not read grutter as establishing that time clock. >> you are appealing to grutter, and that is what it said. >> we are guided buy it here, at least the advocates are, and we are looking at this every year, and once we reach that point, of course we will stop. >> some of the stuff that grutter says you agree with, and some of the stuff you do not agree with.

>> before your time runs out, the other point that i would like you to answer is the argument based on parents involved, that the game is just too small to warrant using racial criteria. you have the 10%. you do not need more. how do you answer the argument that the game is too small? >> i say the consideration of race has increased racial diversity and helps minority enrollment. african-american enrollment doubled the between 2002 and 2004. this has had a huge impact on the university of texas. >> in terms of diversity, how'd you justified lumping together all asian americans? do you have a critical mass of filipino-americans, the cambodian-americans?

>> it can be spelled out. >> do you have a critical mass? all of the subgroups that fall within this enormous group of asian americans? >> we look at whether we have a critical mass of underrepresented minorities, precisely what the grutter asks a to do.if i could make quick point on jurisdiction -- >> before you get to that, suppose you identified a numerical category, designation for critical mass, during the course of the admissions process, can the admissions officers check to see how close their coming to this? >> no, your honor, and we do the do not. >> you can not? >> we would not been monitoring the class. >> that happened in grutter. are you saying it is not correct? one ofyour honor.it was

the things you pointed out in your dissent. what i am saying is we do not have that problem. >> i am asking whether or not you could do that. >> i do not think so, because it was understood to be for the purposes of reaching a demographic. >> they do not monitor, but race is the only holistic factor that appears on the cover of every application, right? >> all of the factors are taken >> i am sorry. the question was whether race is the only one of the holistic factors that appears on the cover of the application. we will give you a little more time since we will give your >> the problemme. is this. it clearly cannot show that she was injured by any incineration of race. it makes clear that ms. fisher was not admitted no matter what her race.

>> are you arguing she does not have standing? , your honor. >> you address that in your briefing with a footnote. he have an obligation to consider every case. you gave us a footnote on which it is hard to see. >> there is another part of this they goes to the belief that she has requested. fallen out. has that is undisputed. the only thing is a request for monetary damages. this request is on page 79. it focuses specifically on the request for the return of admission fees. the reason why it is not enough is that she would have paid the admissions fee no matter what policy the university had.

>> what about our jacksonville case? >> back injury is not sufficient in a backward looking case where you only have monetary damages. they involved four were looking cases are people -- forward looking cases. >> your friend told us these remedial damages had been segregated out of the process and are still available. >> that is not an answer for jurisdiction. it is true that we go improve prove damages. the court makes no doubt that the only request is a request for a mission fees. it says that explicitly. it relieved that does not remedy the injury suffered cannot draft a plaintiff into federal court. >> part of the injury she

suffered. it is not the only injury. she had to pay a fee for an application process which was not treated fairly. >> the payment of application does not remedy the injury that the is complaining about. payment of her application feedback -- >> if this is easy, do it. if not, don't. i want to use accurate numbers. i want to find out how many universities actually use a grutter-type process. one of your admissions officers is the only place that has the information. i didn't want them to do it. you are both here. if you can agree on roughly what the number is i would like to know it.

otherwise i can use pre-grutter numbers. >> i do not have specific leagues areivy using it. this court recognizes that many of the best universities have been losing -- have been using this plan for 30 years or more. >> since we're asking questions, this is a very ambitious racial program here at the university of texas. how many people are there in the affirmative action department of the university of texas? do you have any idea? it would be a lot to people to monitor all of these classes and do all these assessments of race. probably a large number of people would be out of a job if >> onedenly went to 10%. of the things that the

university does monitor is the racial climate on campus. it does that to improve the experience for all students on campus. >> how many people? >> i do not have the specific number. it is an important part of improving the educational experience for all students in a matter what their race.-- no matter what their race. >> in resolving this case, it is important to focus on what is it not at issue. a petitioner is not challenging grutter's reaffirmation that student body diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the consideration of race in university admissions. colleges and universities have relied on that principle. it is a vital interest to the united states said they continue the core ofto do so.

our interest is ensuring that the nation's universities produce graduates were going to be effective citizens and effective leaders in an increasingly averse society in global markets. >> does the united states agree that african american and hispanics from affluent >>ckgrounds deserve a chance? i understand that differently. here is how we understand what is going on with respect to the admissions process at the university of texas. i think it will take a bit of context to do so. the top 10% plan produces some diversity. the university cannot control that diversity in the same way it can with respect to the 25% for the holistic process. my understanding that the universities are looking to do is not to grant a preference for

privilege but to make individualized decisions about applicants to look directly for the educational mission. they will look for individuals who will play against racial stereotypes just by what they bring. the african-american fencer. hispanic student who has master classical greek. but also look for those with a demonstrated track record. >> you have two applicants that are the same in every respect, they come from affluent backgrounds, educated parents, one falls into the group with a preference in the other does not. the last position available under the texas plan, one gets in and one does not. do you agree with that?>> no.

i think there is a automatic-- no automatic preference in taxes.-- in texas. this is right on page 398a of the appendix. they describe an applicant's race only considered that the student will contrary to the boulder diversity. >> the two applicants are entirely the same in all other respects. if the ability to get a racial preference means anything, it certainly has to mean that in the hypothetical given by justice alito, the minority student gets in and the other does not. >> i disagree.. not everyone in an underrepresented group that's preference. >> it is a matter of two equal

and all other respects. what is the racial preference mean if it does not mean the minority applicant wins and the other one loses? >> there may not be a racial preference. >> i do not understand this argument. i thought the whole point is that sometimes race has to be a tiebreaker.you are saying that it is not. then we should just say we cannot use race, do not worry about it. >> i think it functions more subtlety. >> it does not in every case. findings from both courts say the district court found that race is indisputably a meaningful factor that can make a difference. if it does not make a difference then we have a clear case they're using race in a way that does not make a difference. it has to be the race is a we havening factor.

heard a lot about holistic and all that and that is fine. unless it is a determining factor in some cases, it they are using race when it does not serve a purpose at all. >> it does not make a respect to every minority applicants.>> you have to agree that it makes a difference in some cases. >> it does.not necessarily in the situations justice alito posited. >> this is exactly right. it is not a mechanical factor. with respect to the implementation of this compelling interest, it is clear that this plan meets every requirement of grutter and

addresses the concern that you raised in the dissent of grutter. there is no quota. everyone competes against everyone else. it is holistic, individualized consideration. because of where the -- the way the prospect -- the process is structured, they do not monitor -- >> the way i take your answer is that the supposition of justice alito's question is truly impossible. there are not identical candidates because there are not identical mechanical factors except the 10% plan. and factors are so varied contextually set that no two applicants could ever be identical in the sense that they hypothesize. >> that is correct. they make specific individualized tudjman's.

-- judgments. as i understand, race is taken into account. the district found that race makes a difference in some cases. >> the key is the way it makes a difference. by castingdifference a couple judgments an individual applicant in a particular light. >> with the universities are looking for is what is this individual going to contribute to our campus and raise can have a bearing on that. what they can bring to the bring toat they can the seminar. >> so if there are two applicants with the gpa and the

test grades, the essay one, sa two, leadership, davies, wards, community service, socioeconomic status, family responsibility, single-family home, beverages other than spoken at home -- if you have a situation where all of those things are absolutely identical, the person would be admitted on the balance of race? >> i don't think so. . ,> before your time runs out let me ask you another question. in devote a lot of attention your argument to the military. ?an you explain the rotc to me our military effectiveness

depends on candidates from diverse backgrounds who are comfortable exercising leadership in diverse settings. you have a marginal candidate who wants to go to the and may racesas taken into account. if it isn't, he doesn't get in. how does that impact the military? the candidate will probably will .o to texas a&m are >> the point of educational diversity, the ointment of the university of texas is to achieve is to create an environment in which everyone develops an appropriate sense of citizenship, everyone develops a capacity to lead in a

racially diverse society. so it will benefit every rotc applicant from the university of texas. is a significant source of our military leadership. >> what is your view on how we tell when the university has attained critical mass? >> i agree that critical mass is not a number. it would be ill advised -- >> i am hearing a lot of what it our responsibility is to determine where the use of races narrowly tailored to achieving the universities critical mass. think this is a situation where the court simply affords complete deference to the universities judgment that hasn't yet achieved the level of

diversity that needs to accomplish its educational mission. court has to make its own independent judgment. i think the way to go about making that independent judgment is to look at the kind of information that the university considered that could be information about the confirmation of the class. aboutld be information classroom diversity, about retention and graduation rates. it can be information about what is specific to the universities context in history. then what the court has to do is satisfy itself that the university has instantiated its conclusion based on that -- based on the information considered -- that it needs to consider race to further advance the educational goals. thell say that i think that

burden on the university will get harder to meet. don't think there is a number and i don't think that it would be prudent for this court to suggest that there is a number because it would raise the kind of problem that i think justice kennedy identified in creating hydraulic pressure. >> we should probably stop calling it critical mass. it assumes numbers are a certain size or a certain weight. should be a cloud or something like that. >> i agree that it has taken a life of its own in a way that is not helpful. it's not just important to the government, but to the universitiesour have the flexibility to shape their environments and their

educational experience that justice kennedy identified with parents involved, that our strength comes from people of different races different to form and uniting more perfect union. that is what the university of texas is trying to do and it should be upheld.

>> thank you. that is more than i expected. we are seeking a level playing field. there are three things i want to touch on. there has been a lot of back and forth on standing. that really relates to marriage. we do not accept the premise of the footnote that she would not have entered under any circumstance. she was considered for the summer program. >> incentive relief and the return of the money. is that what is limited to? >> no. the point when we were writing it -- >> we said any and other damages is too speculative. is what you actually see injunctive relief and the return of the $100? >> we never had the opportunity. did you ask only for injunctive relief and the $100 specifically? >> the only specific number was the application fee.

>> you would have paid that no matter what? >> you would have returned it for a free assessing of the application. because of the way it was bifurcated, we did not develop the additional damages. what you he pointed out is there other kinds of financial entries that were not ascertainable at the time it was filed. >> she is going to get a better job because she went to a different university? >> that is one thing suggested. the court made this clear. let me go to another issue that

i think i never concluded my answer. we recognize that there is an interest. it could be recognized it at all that what we are concerned about is universities like you'd see and others have used it as a green light to use race, no end point, no critical mass to something that can be reviewed. as long as you do not cross determinative points and fixed quotas, you are ok. we do not think that is the way grutter was intended. it raises all kinds of red

flags. make a determination whether your interesting critical mass in dialogue, the educational interest -- you no >> you're not suggesting that of every minority student that bought into a university -- got into a university only got into a physical education program that the program includes all the star athletes. every star athlete in the school happens to be black or hispanic or asian or something else. they have now reached critical mass of 20% that the university in the situation cannot use race in the holistic way that grutter >> if you are saying

this in a director and she did part of the -- >> everyone of their students who happens to be minority will end up in the program. do you not think the university should consider it needs a different diversity? >> the factor is a choice. you have a critical mass of students. they choose to major in different things. that is the problem of classroom diversity. what are they not in the small classrooms?they never asked the question. why does that happen? you would say that is an aberration. what is causing it? >> are facing the same thing-- aren't they saying the same thing when we are looking at the holistic measure we are looking for the student who is a nuclear scientist? >> no.

they do not take into account the interests. they are not going to use you in major physics. they do it in a way that is premised on academic indexes. the have a two-tiered emission their preference goes to admission as such, not as asserting a by majors. what we see is that grutter has been perceived as a green light. go ahead and use race. that unchecked use of race which we think has been spawned by misreading of grutter needs to be stopped. >> is any different from how race is used in our military

academies? >> those are two different questions. the harvard plan is a very different world. it is a plan about individual missions to establish the thisonic ideal of a class. is not what is going on at u t. i will score you individually. i am admitting categories.i am not i admitting people. in the way they do their system, you can figure out that two people would have had the same pai score. it allows them to boost be pai .core.it is not infrequent there are many candidates who'll score the same pai and a new

boost some of them. ut says we do not boost all the minorities but we want to boost we want thoseike. affluent minorities who we think will improve, in our view, dialogue during that is can't -- dialogue. the belieftrary to do believ that they give points in the same system for socio-economic disadvantages. they cannot even say at the beginning we do not have critical mass, we do not know what it is, there is no judicial supervision. there's no in point to what they are doing. what we have said goes back to how much you write it. you can clarify it. you can say it grutter requires you to do this. we said it would be satisfactory.

to the extent you have the surviving side by side, there could be enormous confusion. >> you want me to look at the critical mass, look at exactly how it is being done in taxes-- in texas which has charts. i will then find enough of a difference and i can write some words that can be administered by two or 3000 federal justices as they try to do with programs. >> if you then look at some of the other deficiencies and clarify the consideration of reasonably available alternatives a necessity, even -- if you then attribute the weakness of the program to the absence of those factors.

you may not have to overrule gruver. .ou can restate this is a narrow window. >> once you reach a certain number then you cannot use race anymore.you want to tell universities, when she reach a certain number, then you can't use race anymore. >> i do not want to gut it. this is unacceptable. gloria brownright.

marshall is a professor. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. abigail fischer had challenged the failure of the university to admit her and she said that it was against her fourth -- her 14th amendment equal protection and their admissions policy was and as race as one factor. the court today decided that the first part of the admissions process, which admits 10% of the high school classes around the state were fine, but the second one that allows race is one in which the lower courts have not scrutinized, using strict scrutiny to the highest level possible, as though there is some sort of race neutral

process used by the court. >> how did it progress all the way up to the supreme court? >> abigail fischer was one of those high school students who did not meet that 10% requirement. she then applied under the second process, which takes a number of different issues or concerns into account. for example, whether or not a student lives in a single- , whetherusehold english is spoken in the household, and all of these different socioeconomic factors as well. she still wasn't admitted. one factor was race. factort it was the one that kept her from being admitted and then she sued. >> is this just kicking the can down the road? wherewe are, it is toward it will fall and remain there. justicepoint, what

kennedy said in reading the decisions that he wrote, we are going back to a time when we review in court, when they decide whether or not raise can be taken into account and they have to look at whether there is another race neutral would have theat same educational benefit of diversity. say we would go to the poorest people and say that that is what we will use. so where is the remedy for the 300 years of racial discrimination suffered by people of color when we say we are not going to use race and coming flea can help it in what we are talking about is ,ffirmative -- to use race and if we can help it, and what we are talking about is affirmative action? she even says, for the de facto

race discrimination practiced for hundreds of years the mode -- hundreds of years, you wouldn't need the 10% high school program. so why deny that race is a factor by not using the word race when this is the reason you have these programs in the first place? >> what do you see happening next? >> the admissions programs around the country will hold their breath waiting for the fifth circuit to determine if there is any other way to get the same level of diversity without using race as one single factor and all of the admissions process. >> decisions in other major cases are expected this week. we will cover those rulings. we're brown marshall, thank you for your help today. >> thank you. >> in a few moments come a discussion cooperation between the u.s. and mexico i. we will hear the

supreme court hearings on affirmative action. has been sent back to a lower court for further review. >> a couple of live events tomorrow morning. a senate homeland security department looking at emergency management. , the senate0 banking committee. witnesses will include representatives of the consumer protection bureau, the federal reserve, and the fdic. now a brookings institution discussion on cooperation between the u.s. and mexico. speakers include the former head of the u.s. customs and border protection agency.

this is a little more than an hour and half. >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. thank you all for coming today. we have launched a book, "the end of nonstop jet," which covers the crucial relationship and looks to the future of mexico. this afternoon, we have a remarkable panel. the biographies are in the program and i do not intend to repeat them.

what i want to stress is the following. a shared responsibility exists between the u.s. government and the mexican government. second clinton was perhaps first -- secretary clinton was perhaps first the to enunciate that. but since that time senior officials from washington have repeated that commitment that the violence in mexico is also our violence and due to the fact that we are the largest market for the illicit products which move toward our border. and that our inability to control the southward movement of arms and bulk cash makes this a joint enterprise. that joint enterprise was very close during the calderon administration and david johnson, who is with us this afternoon, was the director of that department within the state

department which managed that initiative. we are grateful, david, for your joining us this afternoon. an election, a new president, and a new policy is what we are seeking to understand. the situation is dynamic, and for many of us it is uncertain. therefore, we have asked senior official from the mexican government as well as the mexican ambassador to the united states eduardo medina-mora icaza, who is sitting here today but in the front seat of the audience a citizen this afternoon for the moment, to join us to explain what is this dynamic new security policy. because if there is a shared responsibility, we need to understand the shifts that are

occurring. we also wants to present and share with you the response from the u.s. government, and we await the arrival of assistant secretary alan bersin from the department of homeland security, because he has the border and he has the customs and the immigration in his bailiwick. i sincerely hope that mr. snowden has not detained him somewhere and that he will at any moment slip in through there door. i'm going to start off this afternoon asking the minister for special affairs at the

mexican embassy here in washington to present to us the mexican strategy. thank you. >> thank you very much for having us here. thank you, diana. and thank you to everyone for being here. eduardo, it is a pleasure to share this with you. i'm sure you understand our great ambassador has a great sense of humor. that is why he has me up on the stage instead of him. so, i thank you also, the ambassador, for this opportunity. president pena nieto has stated in recent months that he was not

going to have a new strategy but more like a public security state policy, a justice policy that can follow up in what has been done, but certainly that states as a general line to address the issues of security and justice in mexico. we used to have a more reactive approach prior to this administration. and the new approach of the state policy for security and justice is to direct to roots and causes of crime rather than just the consequences. in mexico, and in many parts of the world, there are two

preconditions for full development of a country. the first one is macroeconomic stability. when i was 18 years old, i heard all over the press and media in mexico that there was an economic crisis in 1994. and we didn't know if we should dollarize our economy because the peso was not very stable back then. there were debates in the media, in the cafes, with the policy makers and in the press, on this issue. we did our homework and today we have one of the most solid economies in the world. we implemented a state policy for the economy and we raised our macroeconomic stability. we are looking now to fulfill the second precondition which is security and justice.

president nieto has pointed out six lines of action to do so. the first is planning. we are not looking to have much improvisation here but, rather, a more planned approach toward this issue. the second one is, of course, prevention, social prevention of crime. the national program for the prevention of violence and crime was already presented a few months ago. it focuses on 57 municipalities and litigation where much crime takes place and action in 261 municipal it's of the more than 2,400 municipalities they are being taken to restore social fabric and bring economic and

educational opportunities and certainly also related to treatment. in terms of human rights, we also have made important progress but we have certainly as well a lot of plans. we have a new law and new undersecretary for human rights. and regarding jurisdiction we will not have more trials under military jurisdiction where civilians or persons or military personnel that is off duty is participating. coordination is an important factor. coordination between our agencies at the federal level,

between the federal and state and state and municipal authorities. and certainly we have divided the country in favor regions to approach from a better perspective and from a more technical manner the problems of security and justice there. we are privileging intelligence. a few years government the federal government was effectively kind of substituting the way we approach the problem, substituting the governors. because we were more -- we were having an approach where the federal government would just go to the states and take over the situation, take charge of the situation of the enforcement there, and try to improve the security situation there. this is not what the constitution mandates and it certainly is not the approach right now. we are currently embracing a more shared approach where the federal government is supporting

governors to do their work and certainly supporting also municipalities to that scheme. and we're confident that that will make, and is already seeing a very positive for improving the situation and will make a difference in our country. maybe the most important one, if it is one that is more important than the other, is institutional transformation. in the beginning of my presentation i said we were to address the roots and codes of crime rather than injuries the consequences. behind all of the problem of organized crime lies institutional winds. in mexico we have a very strong state.

we have a very strong state regarding location, regarding -- we are among very few companies with universal health coverage. we are also very strong. our social programs are very good. but in terms of security and justice we're not yet there. we need to make more regarding security and justice in our country. we need to strengthen our institutions to rearticulate our cooperation with the united states that well talk about later. finally, the last line of action is assessment and feedback because this is something we would like to enrich and assess on the process. diana has asked me to talk a bit about the progress on justice reform.

we will make -- we have a deadline in 2016 when our system, our criminal system, has to go from inquisitorial to a more adversarial system to ensure due process. and to ensure the presumption of innocence, expedite trials, ensure quality and the other characteristics that you are right now reading on the screen. it has been fully implemented in one state and 29 other states are taking action to achieve its inception. it has been progress in 20 of them. we are looking to embrace an alternative justice criterion for minor felonies to avoid imprisoning people unnecessarily and expedite safeguarding victims.

this new criminal justice system model does not include yet organized crime but it will include all types of crime in the long term. regarding police and police reform, as you know, we have more than 2,000 police corporations in the country. this is because we have almost one corporation for every of our 2,400 municipalities. there are municipalities where we don't have police corporations. it is a matter of creating critical mass the numbers are very important. we need them it be reliable and effective. but creating critical mass improves reaction, that improves the capability of them to operate in a wider and bigger

area, let's call it jurisdiction even though technically it is not jurisdiction because it is a preventive model of police. and at the same time it is very important to secure peace and tranquillity for the communities in that the territory is well controlled by the police. each state will assess the municipal police forces and the state of those forces if they are required to be a single force in a state or if they will stay municipal police forces but be reformed. certainly municipalities have transferred public safety functions to a single command state government and there is in

place an initiative to create a single police command in our country. regarding the gendarmerie which has been in the media and minds of people who follow this subject very closely, it essentially is a work in progress and it is still in the planning stages. what we do know is that it will be a deployment force to help areas where the state is weaker. this is about territorial presence. it seeks to recover public security tasks and it will have military and police training and structure, civilian command and duties. it will be an addition of the federal police, constrained to electrical plan dates and power. that means it won't be a substitute to the police like it was said or i read somewhere.

it will be within the federal police with rules of engagement and will have a set of duties and will start with 5,000 members. currently the federal police have 37,000 elements, approximately. we have deployed sometimes more, sometimes less, around 45,000 armed elements from our armed forces. so, this means more or less 90,000 elements and we believe it is necessary to have 100,000 elements in our territory in terms of a federal force. the president has stated his intention to take the federal police force from 37,000 to

50,000 elements and the gendarmerie grows to that number we would reach around 100,000 elements and could think of the public security tasks by police force rather than the military. regarding international cooperation, we have had some coordination problems in recent years especially in terms of cooperation, intelligence cooperation and exchange. so, we have already set a single point of contact to exchange intelligence. this is certainly to avoid duplication of efforts regarding national cooperation to increase effectiveness of government actions. most importantly, to avoid competition. our cooperation is based on a best trend basis and the agencies in mexico and the agencies in the united states would choose mutually with whom to cooperate or exchange intelligence. this is not so and will not be

so any more for the case of intelligence against organized crime. we will have a single point of contact to have more coordination and organization of that and certainly in terms of training, technical assistance and cooperation that will continue on a one-on-one basis. the special focus of the new approach will be on money laundering and weapons traffic being. and not, as i said, only in addressing the consequences. this is very interesting. the federal budget for fiscal year 2013 approved by the mexican congress, let me say this correctly, 13,505,120,831 dollars. that stands for our, 1.06% of g.d.p. to prevent crime, fight addiction, regulation can you public spaces and response for public security of the states

and federal district. but this does not include the budget of every state. every state is, of course, focusing on security and justice. this is only at the federal level. and it includes the assistant provided by the federal government to the states. taking this into consideration and bearing in mind the initiative the u.s. is committed to a total of $1.4 billion, we can certainly reach the conclusion that mexico, regarding security and justice, is investing $13 for every $1 that the united states sends these matters. if we were to take into consideration what the states are also investing into these,

we would reach probably around a relation of around 20 to 1 for security and justice that is being invested by the mexican government in comparison to the initiative. this is not assistance. this is more like a shared responsibility because it is a shared problem and we need to seek a shared solution to this. the united states, for us, what they are putting into the initiative is very meaningful and symbolic. at the same time it provides services and other types of -- well, services and equipment. but certainly training that we cannot find in the market anywhere else.

that is more important than the money itself. it is a matter of cooperation and providing training in more in kind than in cash. i know this the time is short, but this is more or less of a breakdown. i'm not sure if you can see these very clearly on the screen. but this is a breakdown of the federal budget for the year 2013 that i just talked about. this information will be available to diana. in brief, just to wrap up, we are talking about a new approach that has justice institutions to complete the deployment of the state in terms of security and justice. that institutionalizes the solution to the problem of violence and organized crime and disrupts the ability of criminal groups to reproduce their model in time and geography.

the bottom line is that we are seeking to assure peace and tranquillity for mexican families in their communities. from the december of 2012 to april of 2013 and i'm sure this will be gone through more thoroughly there were a total of 5,296 homicides linked to organized crime. in the last five months of the previous administration it was over 6,000. when you compare the consecutive periods there's been a decrease of 1,136 homicides. that stands for 18%. still too many but 18% for the first months of the administration i think it is quite a good output. for mexico enforcing the law, it

is an unavoidable obligation. with this i thank you very much and i look forward to the other presentations and commentary and questions on this. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm now going to ask the assistant secretary for international affairs of the department of homeland security, alan bersin, please to respond. >> can we turn off this power point so we focus on mr. bersin. >> thank you, diana. thank you brookings, mr. ambassador. thank you for that presentation. my job today is to describe at least, or outline, the response of the department of homeland security and by extension the united states government to the transition that has taken place

in mexico. in the context of any transition, whether it be mexican or in the united states, when you go from one administration to the next there is a tendency to emphasize the new and the different. and, of course, in any transition there will be changes. but what i suggest to this group is that we need to step back and look at the long-term strategic change that has taken place in the united states of mexico relationship over the last 12 years, certainly over the last six years, and even more pronounced over the last 3 1/2 years. because i think in that long-term and that recognition of the long-term strategic change, we actually begin it understand and can project what

is likely to happen over the next half generation, certainly the next decade. frankly, the large change that will not see any alteration is in a fundamental shift that has taken place in the way the united states government and mexican government view problems. both at the border but also in the interior of both countries. from a history, recognizing that since the u.s.-mexican war in the 19th century and treaty of 1848 we have had a demilitarized unguarded border in the sense of military forces stationed on the border which characterizes border check points in most of the rest of the world. as with canada, the united states in its border with mexico

has been blessed by the absence of armed enemies and we have had a friendly relationship in the context of comparison to much of the rest of the world. having said, that for much of u.s. and mexican history there was basically a courtesy and a determination to emphasize the positive but in terms of real cooperation, substantive cooperation on matters of security and working together for most of our bilateral history that was conspicuous by its absence. it was only at the u.s.-mexican border that there was a genuine equality based on sovereignty. by going from one country to the next it was at the border that the asymmetry in the relationship could be minimized and in fact the national pride and power of mexico be asserted.

that translated in the practical world into the absence of cooperation for the most part. in terms of the kind of cooperation that i believe now has been built into the d.n.a. of the relationship. unlike the past, what we now have is a theory of action that is genuinely accepted by both governments. that theory of action is the recognition of the responsibility, shared responsibility for problems. whereas in the past you would have seen -- and we did hear -- with regard to the major problems separating our countries and sources of periodic tension, whether it be migration or drugs or violence, there was a tendency to point fingers at one another. the problem of migration largely

was attributed from the u.s. side to the mexican inability to provide employment for most of its people. mexicans would point at the united states and indicate that migration issues were largely a function of the american hypocritical desire for safe borders but cheap labor. with regard to narcotics we tended to see the same blame game, so to speak, with regard to americans asking mexicans why they could not control organized crime within their country and prevent the transfer of drugs across the border. and mexicans replying quite strongly that were americans not the largest consumers of narcotics in the world, perhaps the problem of supply from mexico would be put in context. so, on and on in terms of the

way we dealt with these issues. remarkably and irrevocably, that has faded from the scene. what you see is a strategic understanding on the part of the mexican and u.s. governments that these are shared problems. once there was an intellectual recognition that the problem of narcotics coming north, migrants coming north, guns going south, and cash going south, that this was not an occasion for finger- pointing or blaming, but rather a common, a vicious cycle of criminality that affected both countries, the platform for shared solutions became possible for the first time in our bilateral history. as someone who has been involved living on the border and someone who has been honored to be

involved with mexican colleagues for two decades, the change in the bilateral relationship in the last five years, the last seven years, and the last three years, with the growth and cooperation increasing with each development of relationship has been nothing short of remarkable. a genuine transformation in the bilateral relationship based on the notion of shared responsibility and a recognition we must develop common approaches to these shared problems. it has revolutionized the relationship. so much so that i would not lose my focus on those strategic principles of cooperation as we see as will happen in any change of administration a different approach to how one sovereignty

chooses to organize its affairs, particularly its security affairs. those changes, a measured, disciplined approach that has been laid out is something that will not affect, but rather i submit to you will more successfully lead to implementation of solutions to these common problems as we move forward. what i would like to talk about in terms of impact on the united states government are border coordination, interior cooperation, and the job i see for both nations going forward in terms of the next 10 years, work which will need to begin in the next two and then continue.

with regard to the border, our shared border has always -- for those of us who live and work on the border, we have recognized the wisdom of our mexican neighbors referencing the border as the third country. neither here nor there, in which a whole variety of influences whether it has to do with, culture, or family relationships, there is a blend that is less important than for those who live far from the border in mexico city and washington. the fact of the matter is the border has been in the context of our relationship even one of cooperation where force tends to derail the operation and becomes a source of contention.

both governments recognize that. i believe going forward the border violence prevention protocols developed in the context of the first bush- calderon administration will lead to a development of mechanisms and modes of cooperation and communication that will put that history of incidents, each of which is a complicating factor, will not confront them by ignoring them, but rather develop the kind of mechanisms which have been absent to be able to work through the problems of any particular case. i see that as an important point going forward. i also see as we begin to

recognize the huge changes that have taken place in the mexican economy, now the 13th largest economy in the world. $1.16 trillion of gross domestic product projected to be a larger economy and germany one generation from now, 2042. one generation. mexico is projected to have a larger economy and germany by the oecd. the increasing democratization of the mexican political system, more than 50% of mexicans today by any measure are firmly moving in or toward the middle class. this has changed the nature of our border relationship consistent with president obama and president pena nieto saying and insisting we turn and look to the economic dimensions of our economies. that gives impetus to look at

the border, not as an occasion for division but rather as a source of strength to build the competitiveness. the way in which the united states and mexico compete with east asia, the indian subcontinent, brazil, indonesia, and turkey is by lowering our costs, not on labor, but on cross-border transactions. the shared production platforms that exist between the united states and mexico for automobiles and a variety of other instruments and appliances requires we make the crossing of the border sometimes in production before the assembly that automobile cross the border four or five or six terms.

that requires we lower the transaction costs and wait times. we focus on making the border as seamless a place as we can. in the three minutes i have left [laughter] let me turn to the interior cooperation. then the job of the next generation. it seems to me with regard to whether it is the single window of cooperation, what the pena nieto administration has done is organize its security affairs. the united states will work to adjust with our mexican partners, with those with whom we share responsibility, to develop the mechanisms we need to make this work where bilateral cooperation is

important. every program we have described is something that will contribute to the security of mexico and by definition therefore to the security of the united states. i do not think the focus on the elements of transition and the frictions that occur are productive. we are only seven months into the new administration. we're months into the second obama administration term in the united states. i believe we will see focus on the strategic importance of the relationship and less emphasis on the frictions as they subside.

i would suggest for the administration's to pick up on two initiatives the pena nieto administration has focused on. the first is the notion there is a regionalization and the need for regional cooperation looking at north america as stretching from colombia to new york.>> mexico will play an increasing role in leadership with regard to central america and the problems that have arisen in central america. the united states welcomes that leadership and looks to cooperate with mexico in meeting it. the second is to cooperate as we are asked to do with regard to the southern border of mexico, the border belize and guatemala. as mexico controls organized

crime, we see the impact in central america. the strengthening of the border infrastructure in the south of mexico is a project with which i think you will see significant cooperation. lastly, the job for the next 10 years and over the next generation is to institutionalize the work we have established bilaterally. we need to build institutions. the most successful institution in terms of the u.s.-mexican relationship that is ongoing is the ibwc that deals with such dreary matters as boundaries and waters. that was not always the case in u.s.-mexican relationship. if you go back to the 19th century, water and boundaries were a big source of contention. now it is a matter of technical

adjustment. a problem arises in a particular boundary, is referred to the ibwc and handled. water issues are dealt with as technical issues. i look forward to the day when the issues that take up so much of our time on the border have been reduced to technical matters in the u.s. and mexican people focus on the job of economic competitiveness, prosperity for both of our peoples, all of our peoples in a new relationship, the seeds of which are clearly sprouting now and visible to those who will look. thank you very much. [applause] >> now we will get the private security point of view.

>> i have some slides. i brought some slides. first of all, it is a pleasure to be part of a dialogue with such a distinguished panel. the main reason i am here is the publication of this book by the brookings institution in which i contribute with a security chapter. thank you, diana, for your diligence and meticulous work that improved the chapter. i also appreciate the press and mr. bersin and ambassador medina-mora icaza, one of the most notable and knowledgeable of the security situation in

mexico. he has been the head of the intelligence agency in mexico, the administrator of public security, and also attorney general. he has an exceptional career in the securities sector. i will start by recounting some of the main findings i described in the security chapter of the book about organized crime and violence in mexico. next, i will point out some salient features of the current landscape of organized crime- related violence in mexico and some of president pena nieto's security policies. from 2008 until 2010, homicide rates throughout mexico spiked.

in 2008, homicide rates increased by 50% and another 50% in 2009. this sharp increase in violence is shocking. it was a sudden change. it reversed the downward trend in violence which dates back to the 1990's. a central idea which i discussed is that the federal government security strategy resulted in unprecedented capture of drug organization leaders. that is one of the factors that led to the violence crisis. the decapitation of criminal organizations was non-selective. all major cartels were targeted, despite the fact they did not engage in violence and predatory

crimes with equal intensity. thus, they pose different threat levels to the mexican people. the impact of these captures was not to deter violence but to foster uncertainty and instability within organizations which operate on the basis of personal reputation. the hypothesis has been highly contested in mexico, factors from the government strategy may have contributed to triggering violence. however, i have not come across any other compelling explanation for the dramatic increase in violence that started in 2008. it is noteworthy that most high- profile captures were performed on the basis of information provided by the u.s. government. thus, the mexican government had

only a limited ability to implement a strategy more attuned to domestic interests. an important consequence of widespread violence was the parallel increase in extortion, which was recorded by both official statistics and victimization surveys. violence promoted a demand for what is called the legal protection. mafia organizations appeared in several regions. others may operate through a contact network. mafia usually deployed large groups of gunmen and may even have support from rogue sectors of the population. much of the violence we currently face in mexico is not fuel by drug-trafficking or

other criminal activities, but by conflicts between local mafias or their enforcers. by 2011, the federal government shifted from a non-selective to a selective strategy. it specifically targeted the most violent among mexican large drug trafficking organizations. this shift in the federal government's strategy may have provided an important incentive for other criminal organizations to use less violent methods. thereafter, organized crime- related violence initiated a downward trend. it is too soon to assess the new government's strategy. as you can see, i will show you

some graphs. as you can see, violence in mexico has had a steady downward trend since mid-2011. these are quarterly periods during the last years. violence declined during the first six months of the administration of pena nieto. this is my graph. the data i used is collected by my team in the consultant firm in mexico city. we collected on a daily basis, information about homicides

related to organized crime from sources, mainly newspapers, a lot from the national newspapers. we have a reduction if we compare the last semester of calderon with the first semester of pena nieto of 9.2%. the states that have registered the larger violence reductions are the following. guerrero with an important variation. what is important about this is all of these states registered very high levels of violence during the calderon government. this is the graph for the evolution of violence in the

metropolitan area. there is a notorious reduction in violence during the last months. however, there are other states that are registering increases in violence. jalisco and puebla and others. these states registered medium or low levels of violence during calderon. the message is violence is moving from high-intensity violence areas to were

previously low intensity violence areas. here you have the graph for guadalajara. in my opinion, it is the most important case. it is an important metropolitan area in mexico. this is the graph for the mexico city metropolitan area. this includes the capital of mexico, not only the federal district. the landscape of violence in mexico is mixed. there is a national decline of violence. if we look at the data, the state data, there are some places where violence is still increasing.

why has violence decreased in mexico during the last two years? i think there are four factors. the first has to do with the federal government shift from a non-elected to a selective law- enforcement strategy. the second factor has to do with an increasing social demand to put a stop to violence. there are broad social movements in mexico demanding the government stop violence. the third factor is more effective interventions by the federal government and some state governments. without any doubt, there has been institutional learning during the last years. now the state governments and the federal government are more effective to intervene in

certain violent areas. finally, there is reduced availability of new recruits. many local gangs that were previously recruited by the cartels now refuse to have these links because they know the great risk it represents to collaborate with the cartels. regarding pena nieto's strategy, the most noticeable change so far has taken place in the government's communications strategy. mexicans have been spared nonstop propaganda about captures and joint operations which were the trademark of the

previous administration. overall, this change has been positive. however, providing little information could be harmful. especially in areas where they are stronger. the presence of an absence they may contribute to business migration or to the appearance of groups that already exist in certain areas. the government has also engaged in a national program to prevent violence through social interventions. interventions of this type if they are targeted have a large potential in mexico in the long term.

it will be critical to their success to establish a clear distinction between general policies and violence prevention strategies. on the other hand, i believe we need a stronger emphasis on law enforcement strategies aimed at reducing violence through deterrence. i describe alternatives to such policies in my chapter of the book. unfortunately, the ability of mexican law enforcement institutions to implement such policies is still very limited. it could contribute to overcoming these limitations. however, little information has been disclosed about the specifics of this. moreover, it is a deterrent to strengthen domestic intelligence collection at all government levels. as long as mexican high-profile

law enforcement relies on u.s. sources, it will not be possible to implement timely and effective violence reduction interventions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. this is the moment when we ask ambassador medina-mora icaza to comment. >> thank you very much. i am an ordinary citizen. i am accidental ambassador because i am a political appointee and not a career ambassador. when my term or function as ambassador to the u.s. ends, i will no longer be an ambassador, and just a human being an ordinary citizen. thank you for inviting me.

i want to recognize my dear friend alan bersin, perhaps no one more knowledgeable of the border than he, who has lived, worked there and suffer the consequences of being on the border and planning and working together with his mexican counterparts. david and i worked together also. to comment briefly, the current administration is adjusting the strategies. it is adjusting the strategy at the same time with adjusting the narrative. this is important because we have learned from our own mistakes and from our successes. we have learned from other countries mistakes and successes. if any organization, government, company, or business concern

wants to stay successful in the market, you have to adjust your strategy. the most important component is security in the basic obligation of the state. this is what the state is for, to provide ordinary citizens with certainty with regard to their safety and the opportunity to share their talents in their communities and with their families. in this sense, president pena nieto's administration has a new architecture and array. it is focusing on reorganizing and rearticulating the focus of the state under the principles of responsibility and coordination. in the past, maybe we have

devoted to much effort into the federal build up of security and too little on the states. maybe we left the states outside of the equation. this was proven a mistake in the sense it did not provide the results we were looking for. in this sense, at the federal level, the president has delegated the strategy implementation to his home secretary, the ministry of the interior, for everyday task management.

this provides for better coordination within the federal agencies. the secretary of the interior has on its own a very strong responsibility on this because he is the head of the cabinet. he also serves as the national security council executive secretary and takes the role of the president when the president is not present. with the president, he also heads the national security council that gathers the governors, federal institutions, and civil society around building public policy around public security. the secretary of the interior has a large role by legal mandate. it is for him to actually carry out the everyday tasks of management and coordination. with the better combination in federal agencies, the interior ministry is also responsible for carrying the relationship of the

federation with the state governments, the legislative branch, and the judicial. this is his role according to the constitution. this is a political problem in the sense you have to align efforts and responsibilities and mandates of the federal government and state governments with congress and the judiciary around the basic objective to provide mexican citizens and their families with certainty, to provide them with the opportunity to live in peace and tranquility with their families in their communities. this has provided the space for much better coordination between the federal government and the states. it is helping the states to build up their own security institutions, particularly the police force and justice

institutions. together with the national objective to go for what is mandated by the constitution and has to be in place by 2016. president pena has agreed with the governors will not change the date. we will move faster in terms of implementation of this justice system major reform. we cannot leave the governors outside this equation. we have to provide them with the support and help them to build up their own state institutions so we have better coordination and shared responsibility.

we can then move forward toward having a better result with the strategy. international cooperation comes from this better arrangement of the national institutions around this objective. i have to say from the narrative we have developed in the past, we were maybe being seen as using the u.s. as a scapegoat of our own issues. of course, the u.s. is to be blamed for what it is to be blamed. this is common in mexico from institutional weakness. in my view, this is at the center of the new narrative, our main problem is not drug- trafficking. our main problem is security. the absence, the inability of the state to provide security to

its own citizens in the territory. drug-trafficking makes it much worse because it gives the criminal concerns tremendous economic power and firepower that threatens ordinary citizens across the board and builds up obstacles to building a more sound institutional framework. the basic approach is to build up the security institutions that mexico requires and that mexican citizens are entitled to. in this sense, i would say cooperation between the federal government and the states, the cooperation between mexico and the u.s. is essentially based on providing the best of our resources and abilities to institutional buildup in order to allow to provide security to its citizens.

the mexican government has no confusion. we have moved away from the narrative of only focusing on increasing arrests were fighting drug trafficking. there is no confusion or conflict between the new approach which is also based on prevention and law enforcement activities which are more targeted geographically and group-based in terms of the source of violence but also in terms of shared responsibility on the basis of international cooperation, particularly with the united states of america and law-enforcement agencies in the u.s. this is a shared problem in the

sense it has to be seen as a bilateral change for drug- trafficking. we have to take actions in every element. we have to see our main responsibility and job is to build up sound institutions in mexico to make the mexican state able to provide the certainty it is obliged to give to its own citizenship. thank you very much. certainly, i am willing to participate in the discussion. [applause] >> i am going to invite the speakers to come up. we have kept you for over an hour.

i would now like to open this to the floor for questions and answers, asking that you identify your name and affiliation, and please wait for a microphone because this is still being recorded by c-span. there are a number of questions. let's take three and then the next round. >> i am a mexican international student in the states. even though in this dialogue we have been hearing we have been hearing issues about the strategies to solve violence and insecurity in my country, there is in my belief and aspect we

have not yet talked about. that is what is popularly believed to be the single bullet, the thing that would solve the issue. that is the legalization of narcotics. >> can we keep to a question? there are many people waiting behind you. >> if there is legalization, who will regulate it? will it be the government or corporations or another party? >> thank you. the gentleman behind. >> i am a professor at the school of international service at american university. i am currently working on a three-year project concerning obstacles of cooperation between mexican and american law- enforcement agencies to combat

mexican-based organized crime. during a recent visit to mexico city in march, two separate high-level mexican officials -- i cannot give their names -- described america with the following words. they say that merita was an example of u.s. penetration and infiltration, really raising the issue of internal political fighting that might continue to this day regarding the nature of merita and how it is to be perceived. i wanted any comment on that.

>> thank you. ambassador? >> i am a retired u.s. diplomat and a friend of mexico forever. before i throw out my question, i want to say to the ambassador that whether you are a political appointee or career, you are an ambassador for ever. you are excellency forever. i will always call you mr. ambassador. my question is for the assistant secretary. i have sounded off before that it is our fault with the consumers of drugs. our institutions are the money launderers of the profits. we love our guns. i love my gun. what are you doing to shut down the millions of bucket shops

along the frontier that are illegally against u.s., mexico, international law? to shut down this trafficking of illegal weapons? >> i am going to ask the panel to address this. ariel moutsatsos, would you address the question of merita. eduardo, would you address the legalization question? ambassador, your question is already directed to you. ariel. >> the main initiative, since you do not need resources, i will take the liberty of reading these concepts on the initiative.

the initiative is an agreement for cooperation between the united states and mexico, as we already know. it is not only based on no enforcement, which is what i take from your question. it is not only based on equipment. it also includes building capabilities come institutional transformation in mexico. it also deals with preventive measures in both countries. this is a good moment to tell you that never before in our recent history, president pena nieto's strategy has been aligned with the united states strategy regarding drug policy.

the office of national drug control of the white house released a few months after president pena nieto's release of our own strategy the 2013 strategy that has a similar approach on prevention and restoring the social fabric, rebuilding communities. it certainly has more focused on health because this is a country where consumption is higher. conceptually, they are both very much alike. they are very similar. i think this is a great opportunity to reticulate bilateral cooperation to profit or benefit from this new alignment of approaches to the problem.

far from being infiltration or penetration of the united states as you stated. >> eduardo, is there a silver bullet? if so, is it legalization? >> i do not think this is the political moment for legalization in mexico. also for the united states, i do not see the political viability of this initiative. in mexico, violence in drugs generated by gangs in mexico city and other parts of the country because of drugs.

what we need in mexico more is to have some intelligent measures to disrupt markets. we have to do that in the tourist cities. also in mexico city. the situation in mexico city is worse. we have to disrupt these markets. that would be my proposal. >> thank you. alan bersin. >> mr. ambassador, your passion is shared by many. often the world is not constructed to permit solutions a particular point in time. that does not mean there will not come a time when the legal

framework makes a more concerted approach to the problem is to just more viable. i will say in keeping with the doctrine of shared responsibility on criminality that more has been done with regard to the southbound traffic than had previously been the case. the obama administration's position with regard to certain changes in the gun law is a matter of public record. part of the fabric in the relationship between the united states and mexico is we recognize there are conditions in each of our countries that make certain things less likely than other things. in the past, that was the occasion for conflict and dissension. it is now part of the genuine

respect that exists between government officials and the peoples of these two nations. >> i would like to take the next round from the back of the audience. there is a lady with her hand up. your question? >> thank you. thank you for the interesting presentation. there has been talk that the pena nieto strategy affects central america. i hear in many circles in the united states as well as in mexico, how does this objective under pena nieto and of the u.s. government coincide today?

central america had its main goal to dismantle criminal organizations and drug trafficking organizations. now the goal of the mexican government is to reduce violence. can you help us understand if they coincide if it is the same to dismantle criminal organizations? >> the gentleman near the camera in the middle of the room. >> i am with the mexican news agency. the obama administration has said the border is more secure than ever. however the senate is voting on an amendment for additional border patrol agents and

resources to fund the completion of 700 miles of fences, and new walls on the border. does the u.s. need those kinds of resources and manpower? >> the final question from the back. there is a lady in the middle on your left. my apologies for not recognizing you. i need glasses. >> given the security situation in the last few months and the decision of this government to send the military and federal police to that state, how would you distinguish what this government is doing compared to what the former president did in the same state in december of

2006? >> eduardo, if you would address the third question. >> it is interesting. she is focusing everywhere. in both cases, i am thankful. it is a good idea to be thankful. thank you, patricia. let me tell you something. the initiative is not mainly focused on what you just mentioned. the disruption of criminal organizations, what you stated, the institutional position of the rule of law, construction of the 21st century border, and

development of strong communities that can meet pressure from criminal organizations. having said that, the difference -- you asked more about the objectives, how do they coincide? apart from what i have just stated regarding both strategies better coinciding, there is an important difference and opportunity. it is called a holistic approach. before we did not have a holistic approach. neither in mexico, at least not something we could identify as actionable. certainly not very much in the united states.

this is the first time the holistic approach focusing on the cause of crime rather than consequences is implemented in both countries. neither can be considered as part of our bilateral cooperation approach but not as the only one. we have other things we can work on. i think this presents a unique first time opportunity to align between both countries our efforts of bilateral cooperation and attack this problem in its roots and its cause. i do not know if i am answering what i understood from the question. thank you. >> ambassador, the border. >> if he continues to call me an

ambassador, i will have to be diplomatic and not answer questions. [laughter] this monumental piece of game changing legislation from the beginning has involved three elements the president has made clear in his statements from the white house and the so-called gang of eight has articulated from the beginning. there are three major dimensions. the first is border security. the second is a path to regularized status for the 11 million estimated persons who lack the status at this point. the third is to effect a system that would demagnetize the job market in terms of the attraction of legal migration to this country. when dealing with a massive

transformation framework of the kind we are discussing, there will be differences of views as to how each of those elements should best be dealt with. that is what the substance of the discussion that is going on in the senate is today about. i would note that while people will disagree about specific elements, if there is to the immigration reform which the president is supporting and many senators from both parties and many congressmen from both parties will support, the debate over any of those elements will be had. the important thing in a democratic society is that there be sufficient consensus reached such that the larger transformation legislatively

occurs. as the debate continues, people will feel differently about any one of those elements and many other dimensions. as secretary napolitano said, she supports the concept of border security and recognizes there are many ways to supplement and strengthen it. including the proposal now under consideration. >> i think we have put you in a very hot seat. perhaps you would give a different answer at the back of the room without the press here. >> if i am not an ambassador. >> caught at my own game. >> it is one of the most troubling states as far as security in mexico because it

combines two factors. the criminal organizations have a social basis. there is also institutional -- the institutions are weak. the police institutions, etc. that situation has given place to delve into organization of these police better trying hard to protect the communities, the systematic attacks of the criminal organizations that are always trying to extract money by extortion from these communities. in the last weeks, what has happened is that some criminal organizations simulate to the

community police. they are trying to perform the work with this false appearance of community police. the great challenge of the government, the federal government, is to distinguish between the authentic community police and the ones that are criminal organizations that simulate to the community police. >> thank you. we have time for quick round. please ask short questions. the lady and the final gentleman. >> my name is christina. ok. i study international relations in mexico. the problem of security shared by mexico and the united states

is also shared by central america. how should the two governments address the problem in central america? what is the responsibility they have? >> thank you very much, christina. yes. >> i am currently a student at harvard university. my question goes back to legalization. a lot of times when a solution like legalization is broached, the answer given by many is it is not politically viable. is it that it is not politically viable or do you think it is not an effective solution? >> thank you. finally, my fellow author in this book, christopher wilson. >> thank you for the event you have put together. >> you have to tell the audience who you are and where you come

from. >> christopher wilson with the wilson center. i appreciate the focus given to the importance of the coordination between the federal and state governments throughout mexico. i think that is an important piece of any strategy going forward. what is the best way for the federal government to be able to interact, especially with the weaker states in mexico? there is a broad range of capacities from the federal district to some of the states we have been talking about. what can the federal government do to improve the capacity of some of the more challenged states, challenged by organized crime and their own ability to build up institutions for the rule of law? >> alan bersin, i will let you off the hook for this round. ariel, this time to address legalization. eduardo to do the final question about the states.

i will take the central american answers. i have also just published a book about central america. both the mexican and u.s. government recognize these small, weak, but democratic states face a great challenge from criminal organizations. they are too small, their budgets are too little, and they do not have the capacity on their own to fight trans- national criminal organizations. honduras is swamped by drug- traffickers moving airplanes in, pickup trucks taking the stuff to the next stage. alone they will suffer. more homicides, more extortion. we have both the intelligence gathering capacity and i'm not

talking prism but we have the capacity to share the movement of these substances through these countries, particularly with colombian help to train and support law enforcement elements in the countries to with stand and capture the leader and national groups. -- leaders of these groups. the fundamental answer is for citizens with in those countries to stand up and say "we will not accept anymore. that requires neighborhood groups. that requires sufficient trust to be able to report it. trust

is missing. how you restore that is a challenge for the citizens of those countries and the extent we can, support from us. now i return to legalization. this can get his own personal opinion on the matter. >> this is a personal opinion on the matter. i am a diplomat on the part of our government. our job is to enforce the law. here it is to represent the mexican government. however, i would say that it is not of being politically viable or an effective or not solution. i do not inc. -- think we should get cut off in the debate tween legalization and no legalization.

what we need to address in the debate on drug policy and organized crime policy -- we have before us many options. that debate could certainly be one where society is involved, like it has happened before, were intellectuals and the panelists are involved, where academics are involved, and certainly also the authorities. in the end, it has to be a debate far from emotions because a motion is what got us to the war on drugs in the first place. into another us emotional approach that is not surely going to work. we do not know that for sure. we would have to have a debate that is not emotional. based on scientific evidence and what has happened rather than just advocating legalization or not legalization. let me tell you something else

very quickly. were topothetically regulate or legalize drugs, we would still need strong institutions to regulate them. in the end, it is about institutional weakness. strengthening the institutions that we already have for what ever we want them to do. .> you have only a few seconds christopher wilson. >> the federal government can in terms oftes security with two kinds of actions. ,irst, social problems concentrating on juvenile gangs recruited by criminal organizations, and the military police interventions. these efforts have to be articulated. is reactive,ary

the police is reactive to some problems. the social policy is in its own way could these two measures -- own way. these two measures have to be better coordinated. >> i want everybody here to thank our panel for their excellent presentation. [applause] this concludes our meeting. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> in a few moments, a forum on first ladies through american history. in a little less than an hour,

supreme court arguments in the case regarding affirmative action policies in higher education. the high court on monday sent it back to the lower courts for further review. then a discussion on cooperation between the u.s. and mexico. on the next "washington journal," we will be joined by representative mike pompeo of kansas. he is a member of the energy and intelligence committees greater he will talk about the administration's climate change plans and the latest on nsa leaker edward snowden. we will focus on the diplomatic aspects of edward snowden's search for asylum with democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut, a member of the foreign relations committee. we will discuss u.s. intelligence contractors with scott amy with the project on government oversight. onshington journal" is live c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on monday nights, we

continue our focus on first ladies. tonight, women authors who have written about first ladies and presidents. catherine al gore, rita black, and amity should -- amity slays. this is a little less than an hour. [applause] >> what a treat it is to be here. mrs. bush, so good to see you. an old friend from many years in washington. these two women are out of the great tradition of the women who -- a reallyadjuncts dumb term -- to the men who often make trouble, and the women make it better. [laughter]

the ad that anita read, the united states is an equal opportunity employer -- not until a guy have to do -- has to do all those things. and we will see. -- then we will see. the truth is that people are so ignorant about the roles of first ladies and the jobs that first ladies have done throughout our history. our panel is designed to try to shed some light and reduce some of that ignorance it is there is expert on eleanor roosevelt -- there is a sense that before alana roosevelt, first ladies were sitting around and attending to the tea. that could not be further from the truth. ,ven since eleanor roosevelt there is a sense of not really being clear on who was doing what.

, you always complained that when your husband was elected, people said to you, are you going to be barbara bush or hillary clinton? >> i would like to be laura bush. >> there's always that they goes on. i read that best truman relies the comic and after eleanor roosevelt, eiffel like munro. -- i feel like munro coming in after. -- cat, both of us have written about -- you have written about the. martha washington. we know she was active politically and in terms of policy. lobbying for the benefits of the veterans